Skip to main content

Full text of "PENDING NATIONAL PARKS LEGISLATION"

See other formats


AUTHENTICATED 
US. GOVERNMENT 
INFORMATION ^ 


S. Hrg. 114-338 

PENDING NATIONAL PARKS LEGISLATION 


HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 
UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 


FIRST 

SESSION 


ON 

S. 145 

S. 146 

S. 319 

S. 329 

S. 403 

S. 521 

S. 610 

S. 782 

S. 873 

S. 1483 


JUNE 10, 2015 



Printed for the use of the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 


U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
95-282 WASHINGTON : 2016 


For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office 
Internet: hookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 
Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 


COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 


JAMES E. Risen, Idaho 
MIKE LEE, Utah 
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 
STEVE DAINES, Montana 
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 
CORY GARDNER, Colorado 
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 


MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 
RON WYDEN, Oregon 
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 
JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 
ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 


LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 


Subcommittee on National Parks 


BILL CASSIDY, Chairman 

ROB PORTMAN MARTIN HEINRICH 

JOHN BARRASSO RON WYDEN 

LAMAR ALEXANDER BERNARD SANDERS 

MIKE LEE DEBBIE STABENOW 

JOHN HOEVEN ANGUS S. KING, JR. 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO ELIZABETH WARREN 


Karen K. Billups, Staff Director 
Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel 
Lucy Murfitt, Senior Counsel and Natural Resources Policy Director 
Angela Becker-Dippmann, Democratic Staff Director 
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel 
David Brooks, Democratic General Counsel 


(II) 



CONTENTS 


OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Cassidy, Hon. Bill, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Louisiana 1 

Heinrich, Hon. Martin, Ranking Member, and a U.S. Senator from New 

Mexico 5 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, a U.S. Senator from Tennessee 6 

Murphy, Hon. Christopher, a U.S. Senator, from Connecticut 7 

Flake, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from Arizona 8 

WITNESSES 

Knox, Victor, Associate Director, Park Planning, Facilities and Lands, Na- 
tional Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 23 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
Abraham Lincoln Bicent Commission 

Letter for the Record 64 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar 

Opening Statement 6 

American Hotel & Lodging Association 

Letter for the Record 10 

American Rivers 

Letter for the Record 87 

American Whitewater 

Statement for the Record 88 

Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife Conservation 

Letter for the Record 20 

Baltimore Heritage 

Letter for the Record 66 

Baltimore National Heritage Area 

Letter for the Record 67 

Blumenthal, Hon. Richard 

Statement for the Record 90 

Brnovich, Hon. Mark 

Letter for the Record 12 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin 

Statement for the Record 60 

Cassidy, Hon. Bill 

Opening Statement 1 

Colman, Wanda 

Letter for the Record 92 

Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation 

Letter for the Record 16 

Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection 

Letter for the Record 93 

East Granby Land Trust, Inc. 

Letter for the Record 94 

Farmington Valley Visitors Association 

Letter for the Record 95 

Flake, Hon. Jeff 

Opening Statement 8 

Frederick Douglass Family Foundation 

Letter for the Record 68 


(III) 



IV 


Page 


Friends of the President Street Station, Inc. 

Letter for the Record 69 

Grand Canyon Airlines, Papillon/Grand Canyon Helicopters, Maverick Heli- 
copters 

Letter for the Record 96 

Granby Land Trust 

Letter for the Record 98 

Heinrich, Hon. Martin 

Opening Statement 5 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy 

Statement for the Record 58 

Knox, Victor 

Opening Statement 23 

Written Testimony 25 

Responses to Questions for the Record 80 

Kulick, John 

Letter for the Record 99 

Lincoln Group Inc. of the District of Columbia 

Letter for the Record 100 

Maryland Department of Planning and Maryland Historical Trust 

Letter for the Record regarding S. 521 70 

Letter for the Record regarding S. 610 72 

Maryland Historical Society 

Letter for the Record regarding S. 521 73 

Letter for the Record regarding S. 610 74 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa 

Statement for the Record 2 

Murphy, Hon. Christopher 

Opening Statement 7 

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People-Washington Bu- 
reau 

Letter for the Record 101 

National Parks Conservation Association 

Letter for the Record 75 

North Country Trail Association 

Statement for the Record 103 

Rawlings-Blake, Hon. Stephanie 

Letter for the Record 76 

Roaring Brook Nature Center 

Letter for the Record 110 

Safari Club International 

Letter for the Record 18 

Simanski, Hon. Bill 

Letter for the Record Ill 

Simsbury Garden Club 

Letter for the Record 112 

Simsbury Land Trust 

Letter for the Record 113 

State of Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Letter for the Record 14 

Tariffville Village Association 

Letter for the Record 114 


The text for each of the bills which were addressed in this hearing can be found on the 
committee’s website at: http://www.energy.senate.gov/publiclindex.cfm/hearings-and-husiness- 
meetings?ID=ADC24424-9343-4273-BAC7-5C8752E38Dll. 



PENDING NATIONAL PARKS LEGISLATION 


WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2015 

U.S. Senate 

Subcommittee on National Parks 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bill Cassidy, Chair- 
man of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL CASSIDY, CHAIRMAN 
AND A U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA 

Senator Cassidy. This is our first legislative hearing in the Na- 
tional Parks Subcommittee this Congress and my first as Chair. I 
look forward to presiding over the important work of the Sub- 
committee and working with you. Senator Heinrich. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to receive testimony on ten bills 
pending before this Subcommittee. A few have been heard before. 

Two bills sponsored by Senator Jeff Flake were prompted by the 
2013 government shut down, and both advanced on a bipartisan 
basis through the Full Committee. The first, S. 145, the National 
Parks Access Act, would refund money advanced by six states to 
open certain national parks during the shutdown. The other, S. 
146, the Public Access to Public Lands Guarantee Act, would en- 
able the public land management agencies to accept public or pri- 
vate funds to keep public lands open in the event of a future shut- 
down. We will hear more about these from Senator Flake. 

The other two bills from last Congress are S. 319 from our Com- 
mittee Chair, Senator Murkowski, to change the name of Mount 
McKinley to Mount Denali in Denali National Park, and S. 329, 
Senator Murphy’s bill to designate portions of the Farmington 
River and Salmon Brook in Connecticut as wild and scenic rivers. 

We will update the record on these four bills. The remaining six 
bills are new to the Subcommittee. 

S. 873 is another bill from Senator Murkowski, to name the ex- 
isting wilderness inside Lake Clark National Park and Preserve in 
Alaska as the Jay S. Hammond Wilderness Area. Senator Mur- 
kowski cannot be here today, so we will include her written state- 
ment on both of her bills in the hearing record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


( 1 ) 



2 


Statement for the Record 
Parks Subcommittee - Miscellaneous Bills 
Chairman Lisa Murkowski 
June 10, 2015 

Thank you. Senator Cassidy for holding this hearing on ten bills relating to 
national parks and scenic river areas. I appreciate the time to make this brief 
statement about two of the Alaska park bills on the agenda that I am sponsoring. 

The first bill is S. 319 that is co-sponsored by Senators Sullivan and Udall. It 
seeks to officially rename the tallest mountain in North America back to its 
traditional name given by Alaska’s first inliabitants, back to its Native Athabascan 
name of Denali, meaning “the high one.” 

The 20,230-fbot peak was named by the Ohio prospector, William Dickey, who 
took it upon himself to name the peak in 1896 after a man who had never set foot 
in Alaska, tire former governor from his home state who was running for President 
that year. It may have been imderstandable for Mr. Dickey to want to honor his 
fellow Ohioan, William McKinley, but Alaska’s Natives never accepted the name. 

The Alaska State Place Names Board in 1975 voted to rename the peak “Denali,” 
restoring its traditional name. Given that there are a number of towns, counties, 
and institutions named after the former President as well as his monument in his 
birthplace of Niles, Ohio; the street that leads to the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 
Canton, Ohio; a county in New Mexico; more than 20 schools in Ohio; plus 
literally hundreds of streets, libraries, and other institutions and businesses — ^there 
is no danger that Americans will not remember or honor President McKinley. 



3 


I hope this bill, which nearly became law last Congress, can actually cross the 
finish line this year — ^the 40* anniversary of when Alaska renamed the peak to its 
original Alaska Native name of Denali. It seems a fitting gesture and an 
appropriate way to honor the culture and history of Alaska Natives. There is no 
need for this name confusion and controversy to continue. 

My second bill, S. 873, is also a renaming measure, as I am proposing to rename 
the 2.6-million acres of existing wilderness in Lake Clark National Park and 
Preserve after the state’s fourth governor. Jay S. Hammond. Fm joined by my 
colleague Dan Sullivan in sponsoring this bill. 

This year marks the 10* anniversary of the death of Governor Hammond, a man 
whose accomplishments would take far too much time to mention. A petroleum 
engineer, a Marine fighter pilot, and one of the first and leading wildlife biologists 
in Alaska, Hammond fully embraced Alaska and homesteaded on the shores of 
Lake Clark. A noted conservationist, Hammond opposed construction of the 
Ramparts dam on the Yukon River, supported congi'essional creation of a 200-mile 
fisheries conservation zone, oversaw creation of the largest state park in America, 
the 1.6 million-acre Wood Tikchik State Park, and perhaps most importantly, 
presided as state governor in 1 980 when Congress passed the Alaska National 
Interest Lands Conservation Act that created 104 million acres of new parks, 
preserves, refuges, scenic rivers and wilderness area, including the nearly 4- 
million-acre Lake Clark National Park and Preserve. 

While Jay did not like naming things after “fill-in-the-blank politicians,” his 
family, his wife Bella, and his daughters Heidi, Dana, and Wendy have finally 
agreed to allow just the wilderness area in Lake Clark to be named after him as a 



4 


permanent legacy of all he did for the state. There are few named wilderness areas 
in America, one in Idaho after Senator Frank Church and a second in Montana 
after the co-founder of The Wilderness Society, Bob Marshall. It is truly fitting 
that a third be named after Alaska’s self-proclaimed “Bushrat Governor” Jay 
Hammond. 

I again thank you for including the bills in this hearing and I hope that we can get 
them approved this year. Thank you. 



5 


Senator Cassidy. We have Senators McCain and Flake’s bill, S. 
782, that will require the Department of the Interior to produce a 
bison management plan at Grand Canyon National Park within six 
months. This plan would require using skilled, authorized volun- 
teer hunters to help cull the herd. This herd is growing uncon- 
strained and is causing extensive resource damage inside the park. 

We have three authorizations for special resource studies. S. 521 
was introduced by Senator Cardin to study President Street Sta- 
tion in Baltimore, the oldest surviving, big city railroad terminal 
with ties to the Civil War and the Underground Railroad. S. 610, 
another bill introduced by Senator Cardin, is a proposal to study 
P. S. 103, the Public Elementary School that Thurgood Marshall 
attended. And S. 1483, Senator Alexander’s bill, is a proposal to 
study the James K. Polk home, the only existing home of our 11th 
President. 

Finally we have S. 403, introduced by Senator Klobuchar along 
with Senators Stabenow, Sanders, and Franken as co-sponsors. 
This bill would reroute a portion of the North County National Sce- 
nic Trail and extend it to connect with the Appalachian Trail. 

We have one witness today, Mr. Victor Knox, Associate Director 
of the National Park Service for Park Planning, Facilities and 
Lands. I would like to thank Mr. Knox for being with us, but first 
let me turn to the Ranking Member, Senator Heinrich, for his re- 
marks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH, RANKING MEMBER 
AND A U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Since this is the first hearing of the National Parks Sub- 
committee this Congress I would first start by congratulating you 
on becoming Chairman of the Subcommittee. I understand that 
this Subcommittee has historically had a very busy legislative work 
load, and since next year will mark the 100th anniversary of the 
National Park Service, I believe the upcoming centennial will likely 
ensure even more attention to National Park-related legislation. 

This is also an important year for New Mexico’s National Parks 
with the Valles Caldera National Preserve and the Manhattan 
Project National Historic Park established in December of last 
year. 

Overseeing the process of getting those and the other new units 
around the country organized and open to the public will be an es- 
sential task for this Subcommittee. I look forward to working with 
you on policies and programs that can help the Park Service not 
only address its current challenges but also enable it to better 
serve its mission of protecting our natural, cultural, and historic 
national treasures and providing for the enjoyment for future gen- 
erations. 

Moving legislation through the Senate is never easy these days, 
and the key to dealing with bills and issues we are likely to con- 
sider will be to develop solutions that can get broad, bipartisan 
support that will be necessary for those to move through the Sen- 
ate and ultimately get enacted into law. 



6 


Turning to the bills on today’s agenda my sense is that many of 
the bills are relatively non-controversial and several were pre- 
viously considered by the Committee last Congress. 

I know the Administration has raised concerns with a couple of 
the bills so those may require some additional discussion, but I cer- 
tainly look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, to try and 
get the bills on today’s agenda ready for Full Committee consider- 
ation as soon as possible. And I see we have our colleague from 
Connecticut. 

Senator Cassidy. Are there any Senators who would like to make 
a short statement on their legislation today? 

Senator Alexander? 

STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, U.S. SENATOR 
FROM TENNESSEE 

Senator Alexander. Well thanks. Senator Cassidy. I have two 
pieces, but let me mention one. 

My legislation would authorize the Park Service to take the next 
step to determine whether it ought to make the James K. Polk 
home in Columbia, Tennessee, a part of the National Park Service. 
Seventeen U.S. Presidents have homes that are operated by the 
National Park Service. This is the only home of President Polk, and 
while they are a dedicated group of individuals in Columbia which 
is a small town who support it, it is difficult for them to give it the 
kind of support it deserves. 

We talk a lot about science and math and the importance of it, 
but the worse score our high school seniors have in America is on 
United States History. I cannot think of a better way to encourage 
the study of United States History and what it means to be an 
American than to make sure that our Presidential homes are prop- 
erly cared for. 

President Polk was listed on Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.’s poll of His- 
torians 1996 as the ninth greatest President, ahead of Eisenhower, 
John Adams, Kennedy, Cleveland, Lyndon Johnson, and a number 
of others, so he served one term. He said he would do four things. 
He did all four and went home and died, and that was at a rel- 
atively young age. He presided over the annexation of Texas, 
fought in the Mexican War, expanded the United States to Oregon, 
and acquired California. That is a lot to do in four years, so I will 
be making the argument when the times comes that President 
Polk’s home needs to be recognized because of his greatness and 
because of its usefulness as to helping us remind ourselves of what 
it means to be an American. 

Thank you for the time. 

Senator Cassidy. Senator Warren, do you care to make a short 
statement? 

Senator Warren. No, I am good. I am ready to get to our wit- 
ness. 

Senator Cassidy. Okay. All member statements will be added to 
the hearing record. 

We will now turn to Senator Murphy, who has joined us for his 
remarks. 

Senator Murphy, welcome. 



7 


STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, U.S. SENATOR, 
STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator 
Heinrich, other members of the Committee. Thank you for having 
me here today. 

Senator Alexander, I will just note that in college I wrote a 20- 
page research paper on why James K. Polk was the most under- 
rated President. I will be happy, if I can figure out a way to get 
my Apple 2E computer to work again, to print that off for you for 
your efforts. [Laughter.] 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am here to testify, as 
you mentioned, on a bill that this Committee has considered before. 
I thank the Committee and all the staff for its work on the Lower 
Farmington River and Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic River Act. 

The journey to obtain the designation began over a decade ago 
when local residents in the towns of Avon, Bloomfield, Burlington, 
Canton, East Granby, Farmington, Granby, Hartland, Simsbury, 
and Winsor, Connecticut came together to form a unique partner- 
ship to protect this river. It is my hope that with your help the 
amazing, community-driven work that has been done can be finally 
endorsed this year through a Federal designation for the Lower 
Farmington River and the Salmon Brook. 

There really is an amazing ecological, recreational and historic 
story to tell about this stretch of river. I just want to briefly men- 
tion a few of the highlights. 

Ecologically this is a really important stretch of river. For those 
of you who care about shellfish, and we care a lot about them in 
the Northeast, this is the only known river to support all 12 native 
New England, freshwater mussel species, including the only Feder- 
ally-endangered freshwater mussel that occurs in New England. 

It also has some of the highest water quality in all of Con- 
necticut, so it provides excellent fishing for Brown Trout, Brook 
Trout and Salmon. Many fishermen will tell you that cold water 
trout fisheries of the Salmon Brook provide some of the most out- 
standing opportunities for angling anywhere in the Northeast. 

Recreationally the Tariffville Gorge in Simsbury, which is part of 
this stretch of river as well as in East Granby, provides premier 
Whitewater paddling and has been the location for world-class pad- 
dling competitions. 

It is also one of the very few rivers in the East where there are 
year round paddling opportunities. The Tariffville Whitewater Tri- 
ple Crown Challenge just wrapped up a few weeks ago, and this 
event has attracted its competitors from all around the world in- 
cluding U.S. Olympic team members. 

Historically, this river is also pretty astounding as well. Over 100 
prehistoric archeological sites have been discovered to date in the 
Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook corridors. It has been 
continuously occupied, and this is really remarkable. It has been 
continuously occupied by human settlement for over 11,000 years, 
and most recently of those 11,000 years, in the 1800’s, it was one 
of the most active sites of the Underground Railroad. Farmington 
was referred to as the Grand Central Station of the Railroad be- 
cause of its robust abolitionist activities. 



8 


This bill began back in the niid-2000’s when my predecessor in 
the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Nancy Johnson, 
helped enact legislation that initiated the study on which this 
present bill is based. The study was completed in 2011, and it con- 
firmed the suitability of designating the Lower Farmington River 
and Salmon Brook as wild and scenic. 

This is also the product of these ten towns coming together. 
There are Republican and Democratic local administrations in all 
of these towns. They all support it. It does not represent the Fed- 
eral Government stepping in to manage the river, rather the bill 
serves to complement the independent work of a group of Con- 
necticut communities that are simply looking for a committed part- 
ner at the Federal level. 

To my mind this bill really embodies what Congress should be 
doing. We are listening to the needs of local residents, and we are 
supporting their work. It is a model that has worked elsewhere in 
the state. In fact, the upper 14-mile portion of the Farmington 
River was designated as wild and scenic in 1994, so we already 
have Federal designation on the upper portion of this river. This 
is seeking designation for the lower portion as well. 

Finally, since last year’s hearing on the bill, I have worked very 
closely with the Park Service and one specific dam operator along 
the river to craft an amendment that ensures the interest of all 
stakeholders, the towns and the companies who own property along 
the river so that they are all taken into account. So we are here 
today with full support from all of the stakeholders for this under- 
lying bill and the amendments. 

During last year’s hearing on the legislation the National Park 
Service spoke positively about the bill but stopped short of endors- 
ing it because the Park Service study report had not been com- 
pleted. The study is now complete, and I hope that you will hear 
today endorsement for this bill. 

Again, I thank the Committee for all of its work on this bill. This 
is the second time before you. I hope that this is a fairly non-con- 
troversial measure. 

As I said, we have really wonderful, broad, bipartisan support for 
this bill. All of the stakeholders are behind it given the fact that 
the upper portion of the river has already gotten this designation. 
Hopefully it makes this bill even easier. 

Thank you for your time. 

Senator Cassidy. Thank you. Senator Murphy, and thanks for all 
of your hard work showing how it should be done. 

We have been joined by Senator Flake, who is a member of the 
Full Committee. Senator Flake, would you like to make a comment 
on your bills? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF FLAKE, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

ARIZONA 

Senator Flake. Yes, just a couple of moments, thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, for allowing me to do this. 

There are three pieces of legislation on today’s agenda that I will 
very briefly address. 

S. 145, the National Park Access Act. I want to thank the Rank- 
ing Member, Senator Heinrich, for co-sponsoring that. It is some- 



9 


times called the reimbursement bill. It just requires that the Park 
Service reimburse the state who fronted the money when there was 
a shut down. The Federal Government got a windfall that was 
never returned to the states. This passed by voice vote last Con- 
gress. It should be non-controversial. I hope that we can get that 
done. 

The second one is the National Park Access and Public Land 
Guarantee Act. This would simply require the Secretary of Interior 
or the Federal agencies to enter into agreements with State agen- 
cies or governments if there is another shut down. We all hope 
there is not another shut down, but if there is one, we do not want 
the states to pay the price. The last time there was one it took the 
Federal agencies an undue amount of time to actually agree to 
enter into an agreement and allow these parks to remain open. 
This would simply require them to move more swiftly to do that. 

The third one is the Grand Canyon Bison Management Act. This, 
as pointed out before, is a big problem in Grand Canyon Park. You 
have these cattalo or beefalo. These hybrid or cross-bred buffalo 
that migrated into the park are really wreaking havoc, and we 
have asked the Park Service to come up with a plan to deal with 
them. They said more than a year ago they would come up with 
a plan, but they have not finished it yet. If they do it will be by 
next year, and then it will likely be very slowly implemented. This 
bill would simply allow them to enter into agreements with li- 
censed, skilled volunteers who would assist in lethal culling. This 
is similar to legislation that was introduced by former Senator 
Mark Udall with regard to elk herds in other National Parks. It 
can be done more quickly and certainly help with the situation. 
The environmental degradation is really bad, and we need to move 
ahead with that. This is a bill that has been introduced by Senator 
McCain and myself. Let me just ask unanimous consent to enter 
some letters from outside groups to these bills in support for S. 
145, S. 146, letters from the American Hotel and Lodging Associa- 
tion supporting it. Attorney General Mark Brnovich, also the Ari- 
zona Game and Fish Commission, the Congressional Sportsmen’s 
Foundation, Safari Club International, and the Arizona Sportsmen 
for Wildlife Conservation is supporting S. 782. 

[The information referred to follows:] 



10 


January 29, 2015 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 
Washington, DC 20510 


AH LA 




AMERICAN HOTELS LODGING ASSOCIATION 


Dear Chair Murkowski, 

The American Hotel & Lodging Association (AH&LA), the sole national association 
representing all segments of the 1,8 million-employee U.S. lodging industry, strongly supports 
Senator Flake’s legislation, S. 146, the Public Access to Public Land Guarantee Act, and S. 145, 
the National Park Access Act, and we thank the National Parks Subcommittee for its interest in 
this issue in the past. 

During the 2013 government shutdown, many small businesses and communities across the 
country with economies that rely on our national parks lost hundreds of millions of dollars in 
economic activity due to the National Park Service’s decision to wait more than a week before 
authorizing states to reopen and operate parks using non-federal funds. These communities’ 
principal industry, and in some instances only significant industry, is tourism and this delay had 
very serious consequences. Hoteliers in particular were severely impacted by the 16-day 
shutdown, during which our industry lost $1 1 5.2 million in economic activity. 

S.146 provides valuable safeguards against shutdown delays in the future and would prevent 
interruptions in normal operation before they start by allowing the Administration to enter into 
agreements with states to allow for the continued operation of public lands due to a lapse in 
appropriations. In addition, S.145 would help repair some of the economic impact on 
communities by requiring the federal government to refund to the states all state funds used to 
operate a unit of the National Park System during the October 20 1 3 shutdown. 

S.146 and S,145 ensure that no matter what happens in Washington, the communities across the 
country that rely on national parks as their economic drivers will not face undue hardship. The 
successful operation of our national parks is crucial to the economic viability and job creation 
capabilities of the hotels, resorts, restaurants, retail outlets, and many other small businesses 
relying on park visitors. Consequently, we urge the full Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee to prevent future economic uncertainty by scheduling a mark-up of Senator Jeff 
Flake’s legislation as soon as possible. 

Sincerely, 

The American Hotel & Lodging Association 

Alabama Restaurant & Hospitality Alliance 
Alaska Hotel & Lodging Association 
Arizona Lodging & Tourism Association 


1201 NEW YORK AVE.NW, SUITE 600 \ WASHINGTON, DC 20005 \ 202 289 3100 \ WWW.AHlA,COM 



11 


Arkansas Hospitality Association 

California Hotel & Lodging Association 

Colorado Hotel & Lodging Association 

Connecticut Lodging Association 

Florida Restaurant & Lodging Association 

Georgia Hotel & Lodging Association 

Hawai’i Lodging & Tourism Association 

Illinois Hotel & Lodging Association 

Indiana Restaurant & Lodging Association 

Louisiana Hotel & Lodging Association 

Maine Innkeepers Association 

Massachusetts Lodging Association 

Michigan Lodging and Tourism Association 

Minnesota Lodging Association 

Montana Lodging & Hospitality Association 

Nebraska Hotel & Motel Association 

Nevada Hotel & Lodging Association 

New Hampshire Lodging & Restaurant Association 

New York Hospitality & Tourism Association 

North Carolina Restaurant & Lodging Association 

Ohio Hotel & Lodging Association 

Oklahoma Hotel & Lodging Association 

Oregon Restaurant & Lodging Association 

Pennsylvania Restaurant & Lodging Association 

Rhode Island Hospitality Association 

South Carolina Restaurant & Lodging Association 

Tennessee Hospitality Association 

Texas Hotel & Lodging Association 

Utah Hotel & Lodging Association 

Vermont Chamber of Commerce 

Virginia Hospitality & Travel Association 

Washington Lodging Association 

West Virginia Hospitality & Travel Association 

Wisconsin Hotel & Lodging Association 

Wyoming Lodging & Restaurant Association 


Cc: Senator Jeff Flake 



12 


Mark Brnovich 

ATTORNCr Qenerai. 



Office of the Attobnev General 
State of Arizona 


April 2, 2015 


The Honorable John McCain 
5353 North 16"‘ Street, Suite 105 
Phoenix, Arizona 85016 

The Honorable Jeff Flake 

2200 EastCamelbaok Road, Suite 120 

Suite 120 Phoenix, Arizona 85016-3455 

The Honorable Paul Oosar 
220 North 4"' Street 
Kingman, Arizona 86401 

Re; Grand Canyon Bison Management Act 
Dear Senator McCain, Senator Flake and Representative Gosar: 

I want to offer my support for the Grand Canyon Bison Management Act (S. 782). This 
legislation is a sensible solution to address the impact of bison on the Grand Canyon’s natural 
and cultural resources. I agree with the objective of the legislation to allow hunters to remove 
bison from the national park in exchange for their assistance in reducing the herd. 

Hunters were the first conservationists and hunting plays a valuable role in sustaining 
healthy wildlife populations. The Grand Canyon Bison Management Act will provide an 
opportunity to hunt this free-tanging bison herd. Moreover, himtera harvesting bison on the 
national park will eventually achieve the desired objective of moving this herd back to the 
Kaibab National Forest, where it belongs. 

Cunent federal restrictions that prohibit a hunter from removing a bison serve no 
purpose. Too often federal regulations unnecessarily encroach on the State’s trust 


1276 West Washinotom Street, Phoenix, Abieona 86007-2926 • Phone 602.642.4206 • Fax 802,642.4086 • wivw.ATAa.oov 



13 


leaponsibilities to manage and conserve wildlife for the benefit of the public and ftituie 
generations. Your effort in sponsoring the Grand Canyon Bison Management Act is an important 
step in restoring the State’s autliority over wildlife. 

Sincerely, 

Mark Brnovich 
Arizona Attorney General 



14 



THE State of Arizona 

Game and Fish department 

5000 W. Care^ee Highway 
Phoenix, AZ ^086-5000 
(602) 942-3(XlO • WWW.AZ6FO.GOV 


GOVERNOR 
DCHJSUe A, DtJCEY 
COMMfSStONERS 

CH«RM«4. ROBERT E. MAI4SELL. WINSLOW 
»iRT R. DAVfs, Phoenix 
EDWARD •‘Pat” Madden , Flagstaff 
James R. ahmons, yuma 
& ZiELER, ST- Johns 
Director 
Larry o. vovles 
DEPUTY DIRECTOR 
TV E. Gray 



May 12, 2015 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Chair Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D C. 20510 Washington, D C. 20510 

Dear Chair Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell, 

On April 10"\ 2015 the Arizona Game and Fish Commission (Commission) voted unanimously 
to support S, 782; Grand Canyon Bison Management Act (S.782 or “Act”). We are writing to 
request that you hear S. 782 at the next appropriate Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee hearing. 

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission is comprised of five members appointed by the 
Governor pursuant to A.R.S. §38-211 and is the oversight body responsible for setting 
regulations and policies designed to manage wildlife. This five member board sets policy by rule 
and overall direction for the Arizona Game and Fish Department (Department) in a public 
process where issues are voted on after presentations from the Department and input from the 
public. 

The Commission and Department manage wildlife in accordance with the North American 
Model of Wildlife Conservation, which asserts that wildlife is held in public trust and not owned 
by any one person or entity, regardless of whether the animal is on public or private land or 
water. All wildlife is managed based on the overall public good. The North American Model 
allows non-frivolous use of wildlife, and relies on scientific research-based management. It 
recognizes that wildlife cannot be managed along political boundaries, so cooperation across 
boundaries is a necessity. The North American Model also relies on laws and enforcement, and 
provides the public a voice in wildlife management decisions. 

Over the past few decades, the bison abundance, distribution, and movement in and near the 
Grand Canyon's North Rim, have impacted both natural and cultural resources within the Park,. 
Strategies used to date have not been effective at addressing the issues of over-abundant bison. 
When managed for appropriate abundance and distribution, bison can exist in harmony with 
ecological processes on the park and contribute to the quality of the recreational experience on 
and off the park for generations to come. The herd has few natural predators other than humans. 
Hunters can pursue bison in areas outside the national park by purchasing permits and tags from 
the state. However, because the herd spends the vast majority of their time on the park, hunting 
on adjacent National Forest lands has not been effective in reducing the herd to ecologically 
appropriate levels. With approximately 52,000 acres of park territory in which to roam, and 


An equal CWORTUNtTV REAK>NABU ACCXWMOOATKWS AGENCY 



15 


prime grazing land to support them, the bison have little incentive to leave their safe haven and 
wander outside park boundaries. 

The Act would require both the U.S. Department of Interior and the Arizona Game and Fish 
Commission to coordinate on producing a plan to manage bison using non-lethal means such as 
hazing, fencing and others and one that also allows sportsmen-volunteers holding a valid state- 
issued hunting license to assist in managing tiie bison population within the park through culling. 
The volunteers would then be legally authorized to remove the full bison carcass from the park. 
It is important to remember that this simple solution to a growing problem would be at no cost to 
the federal government and will be handled by trained volunteers. 

The Commission implores you to hold a hearing on S.782 at the next appropriate Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee hearing and become part of this common-sense solution to protect 
tlie Grand Canyon’s natural and cultural resources. 


Sincerely, 

Robert E. Mansell 

Game and Fish Commission Chairman 


CC: 

Senator John McCain 
Senator Jeff Flake 
Governor Doug Ducey 
Attorney General Mark Brnovich 



16 



May 6, 2015 


Senator John McCain 

241 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: S. 782 - Grand Canyon Bison Management Act 
Dear Senator McCain: 

On behalf of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, T write today to express support for S. 782, 
the Grand Canyon Bison Management Act. This legislation represents a well thought-out and 
reasonable approach to addressing the ongoing damage to cultural and natural resources caused by the 
overpopulation of bison in Grand Canyon National Park. 

Since 1989 the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation has maintained a singleness of purpose that has 
guided the organization to become the most respected and trusted sportsmen's organization in the 
political arena. CSF's mission is to work with Congress, governors, and state legislatures to protect and 
advance hunting, angling, recreational shooting, and trapping. The unique and collective force of the 
Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus (CSC), the Governors Sportsmen's Caucus (GSC) and the National 
Assembly of Sportsmen's Caucuses (NASC), working closely with CSF, and with the support of major 
hunting, recreational fishing & shooting, and trapping organizations, serves as an unprecedented 
network of pro-sportsmen elected officials that advance the interests of America's hunters and anglers. 

As a member of the CSC and supporter of our country’s outdoor heritage, CSF applauds your efforts to 
recognize the role that sportsmen and women play in managing and sustaining wildlife populations 
through regulated taking of wildlife. In the case of the Grand Canyon bison herd, existing National 
Park Service laws and regulations that limit the Arizona Game and Fish Commission’s ability to 
actively manage wildlife through hunting serve as a prime example of how limiting the availability of 
science-based wildlife management techniques can have detrimental impacts to some of our nation’s 
most treasured natural resources. 


The Sportsmen's Link to Congress 


110 North Carolina Ave., SE ’ Washington, DC 20003 ‘ 202.543.6850 ' 202.543-6853 Fax ' www.sportsmensIink.org 



17 


S. 782 addresses this concern by directing the Secretary of Interior to develop a bison management 
plan that relies on using skilled public volunteers that have been issued a valid hunting license by the 
State of Arizona to reduce bison populations in Grand C^yon National Park to appropriate levels. In 
addition to furthering resource management goals, this approach would be more cost effective than 
hiring professional shar^ishooters to cull the herd or utilizing birth-control agents; would generate 
revenue to support wildlife management and conservation in Arizona and would likely trigger bison 
movement out of the National Park, therefore creating additional hunting opportunity on adjacent lands 
managed by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service. 

Furthermore, S. 782 allows licensed skilled volunt^rs to remove bison harvested from within Grand 
Canyon National Park to put these animals to beneficial use. This provision is consistent with the 
North American Model Wildlife Conservation Model which calls for non-frivolous use of wildlife. 

With these factors in mind, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation is pleased to offer its support of 

S. 782. 

Sincerely, 

Andy Treharae 
Western States Director 
Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation 



FIRST FOR HUNTERS 


June 9, 2015 


The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

United States Senate 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member, Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

United States Senate 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Rob Bishop 
Chairman 

House Committee on Natural Resources 
1324 Longworth House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Raul Grijalva 
Ranking Member 

House Committee on Natural Resources 
1324 Longworth House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20510 


Re: Support for H.R. 1443 and S. 782, the Grand Canyon Bison Management Act. 


Dear Senator Murkowski, Senator Cantwell, Congressman Bishop, and Congressman Grijalva: 

Safari Club International supports H R. 1443 and S.782, the Grand Canyon Bison Management 
Act, This legislation will provide sportsmen and women with a unique opportunity to participate 
in sustainable-use conservation in Grand Canyon National Park and will help the National Park 
Service better manage the Park’s wildlife. 

The National Park Service (Service) already has the authority to allow “skilled public 
volunteers” to assist in the reduction and management of wildlife populations on National Parks. 
In WildEarth Guardians v. National Park Service, the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Colorado and the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals each affirmed the Service’s authority to 
authorize members of the hunting community to act as volunteers during wildlife management 
operations. H R. 1443 and S.782, however, contain three important elements that go beyond the 


Safari CJub Internationa! - Washington DC Office 

501 2“* Street, NE, Washinglon, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • mvvv.safariclub.org 



Letter to Support H.R. 1443 and S. 782 
June 9, 2015 
Page 2 of 2 


19 


scope of authority provided to the Secretary of the Interior in existing law. First, the bills 
obligate the Secretary to utilize skilled public volunteers to reduce the bison population within 
the Park. Second, they require the Secretary to publish a management plan to reduce the bison 
via lethal culling by skilled public volunteers within six months of enactment of the Act, rather 
than give the Service the discretion to wait several years before producing a management plan 
that includes the utilization of skilled volunteers. Third, the legislation provides the skilled public 
volunteers with the opportunity to remove the meat from any harvested bison from the Park for 
themselves and/or to share with others. 

Without congressional authorization, the Service has (1) the authority rather than the direct 
mandate to utilize members of the hunting community as volunteers; (2) the ability to postpone 
the planning necessary for this wildlife management effort; and (3) the opportunity to deprive 
volunteers from retaining the meat resulting from the cull. To address this last concern, H.R. 
1443 and S.782 make it possible for volunteers to enjoy the harvested bison and engage in the 
sustainable use of these animals. In other programs in which the Service has utilized volunteers 
to reduce wildlife overpopulations, the Service has prohibited volunteers from retaining the meat 
from the animals they took, even though the Service allowed others to participate in lotteries for 
portions of the meat. In effect, the Service penalized the volunteers for participating. This 
legislation would remedy an inexplicable inequity in the volunteer process. Safari Club 
International strongly supports sustainable-use conservation and management involving the 
participation of members of the hunting community. 

Using skilled public volunteers to cull the bison is a sound and workable solution to a wildlife 
management problem. The Service will be afforded an opportunity to better manage the 
overpopulated herd, while spending less money by using volunteer agents rather than hiring 
professional sharpshooters. The volunteers will be able to participate in a unique conservation 
opportunity and be able to take home the meat as an added benefit. 

Safari Club International strongly supports H.R. 1443 and S. 782. If you require any additional 
information, please do not hesitate to contact Anna Seidman, Safari Club International’s Director 
of Litigation at aseidman@safariclub.org or 202-543-8733. 


Sincerely, 




Craig Kaufman 
President 

Safari Club International 


Safari Club International - Washington DC OjfUce 

501 2”' Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • mw.safaridub.org 



20 



Mays, 2015 


Senator John McCain 

241 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

RE: Grand Canyon Bison Management Act, S.782 
Dear Senator McCain: 

On behalf of Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife Conservation (AZSFWC) and 14 of 
our member organizations, we applaud your efforts on behalf of sportsmen in the 
form of Senate Bill 782, the Grand Canyon Bison Management Act! 

On June 6, 2014, we provided input and comment to the National Park Service 
(NPS) for their Bison Management Plan and EIS during this Public Scoping period 
as follows: 

• NPS should construct bison proof exclosures to protect riparian areas, other water 
sources and sensitive archaeological and historical sites. This action would be 
consistent throughout the rest of the state where landowners must fence out 
wildlife, livestock and other species they do not want on their property. It would 
also allow park visitors to continue viewing this native, iconic animal, which just 
happens to be on the NPS logo. 

• NPS should develop a bison education plan for park visitors, including a history of 
the bison in and around the park, the ongoing management plan underway, as well 
as safety matters when encountering these animals. 

• While the NPS develops plans to enhance the bison herd's migration away from 
sensitive areas, they should also work at improving forage, range and water 
sources for the herd to ensure those efforts are successful at desired locations. 

• Most importantly, if baiting, soft handling, herding and hazing don't work to 
move the bison, any lethal removal of the animals should be coordinated 
with the AZGFD, using "skilled public volunteers" aka sportsmen with tags! 

• We understand “hunting” is not allowed on the GCNP, but it only makes 
economic sense to utilize “skilled public volunteers” who are willing to pay 


AZSFWC letter to Senator McCain supporting Grand Canyon Bison Management Act - 5-8-2015 

Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife Conservation 
PO Box 12590 Glendale. AZ 853 1 8 



21 


to harvest/lethally remove a bison, versus having the NPS pay a contractor 
to do it. 

• These population reduction measures on the GCNP could use “skilled public 
volunteers” selected through the AZGFD draw application process and 
licensed accordingly. The successful applicants could attend an information 
session prior to the pursuit to harvest. The controlled harvests could be 
scheduled at such times when access to the GCNP is limited by road 
conditions or the season, and could be undertaken with both the guidance of 
AZGFD and GCNP personnel as well. In addition to the potential harvest of 
designated animals, compliance with all rules and regulations both by the 
GCNP and AZGFD would be understood, including designated weapon type, 
proper firearms handling, and elimination of any wanton waste of a 
harvested animal. 


Noting particularly the bullet points in bold, we’re pleased S.782 tracks with our 
input to the NPS. 

Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife Conservation is a 501 c-3 organization dedicated to 
wildlife, habitat conservation work and educating sportsmen on related issues. 

Our member organizations reach across the spectrum of hunting, angling and 
outdoor recreation groups from all over Arizona. 

Thank you for your efforts to get this bill passed! 



Jim Unmacht 
President 


AZSFWC letter to Senator McCain supporting Grand Canyon Bison Management Act - 5-8-20 1 5 


Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife Consen ation 
PO Box 12590 Glendale, AZ 853 18 



22 


Amx-Cfhm 



AZSFWC Member Groups Supporting Input to the National Park 
Service on the Bison Management Plan 


AZ Antelope Foundation 
AZ Bass Federation Nation 
AZ Big Game Super Raffle 
AZ Bowhunters Association 
AZ Chapter National Wild Turkey Federation 
AZ Deer Association 
AZ Desert Bighorn Sheep Society 
AZ Elk Society 
AZ Roundsmen 
Coconino Sportsmen 
Outdoor Experience 4 All 
SRT Outdoors 
The BASS Federation 
I.2.3.G0... 


AZSFWC letter to Senator McCain supporting Grand Canyon Bison Management Act - 5-8-2015 

Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife Conservation 
PO Box 12590 Glendale, AZ 853 1 8 



23 


Senator Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Cassidy. It is time to hear from our witness. Mr. Knox 
is the Associate Director of the National Park Service. At the end 
of his testimony we will begin questioning. Your full written testi- 
mony will he made part of the hearing record. Please keep your 
statement to five minutes so that we will have time for questions. 

Mr. Knox, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF VICTOR KNOX, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK 

PLANNING, FACILITIES AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERV- 
ICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. Knox. Mr. Chairman and Senator Heinrich, thank you for 
the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee. 

Senator Heinrich. Mr. Knox, I just want to point out to our col- 
league that if he does need to go then now would be an appropriate 
time. You do not need to sit through the entire hearing. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Knox. 

Senator Alexander. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank 
Senator Murphy for his bipartisan gesture which I assume 
amounts to a co-sponsor of my bill about President Polk. [Laugh- 
ter.] 

Mr. Knox. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to ap- 
pear before this Subcommittee to present the Department of Inte- 
rior’s views on the ten bills on today’s agenda. I would like to sub- 
mit our full statement on each of these bills for the record and 
summarize in my oral statement the Department’s views. 

S. 145 requires the National Park Service to reimburse each 
state that provided funds to open and temporarily operate units of 
the National Park system in October 2013 when there was a lapse 
in appropriations for most Federal Government activities. The Na- 
tional Park Service does not have the authority to reimburse the 
states for the approximately $2 million in donated funds that were 
expended. S. 145 would provide that authority. 

S. 146 would require the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture 
to enter into agreements with states or their political subdivisions 
to accept funds to open National Park units. National Wildlife Ref- 
uges, Bureau of Land Management public lands and National For- 
ests during a government shut down and provide for reimburse- 
ment to the states. The Department strongly opposes Senate 146. 
We disagree with the idea of enacting laws to lessen the impact of 
a future government shut down for a few select governmental ac- 
tivities rather than protecting all such activities by avoiding a fu- 
ture lapse in appropriations. 

S. 319 would designate Mount McKinley in the State of Alaska 
as Mount Denali. The National Park Service appreciates the long 
history and public interest for both the name Mount McKinley and 
the traditional Athabaskan name, Denali. The Department respects 
the choice made by this legislation and does not object to S. 319. 

S. 329 would designate 35 miles of the Farmington River and the 
entire 26 miles of its major tributary, Salmon Brook, as part of the 
wild and scenic rivers system. The Department supports enactment 
of S. 329 with an amendment. 

S. 403 would revise the route of the North Country National Sce- 
nic Trail in Northeastern Minnesota and extend the trail beyond 



24 


its current terminus in New York eastward into Vermont increas- 
ing the total length of the trail for approximately 4,000 miles to ap- 
proximately 4,600 miles. The Department supports enactment of S. 
403. 

S. 521 and S. 610 would authorize special resource studies of two 
sites in Baltimore — President Street Station, which is a historic 
train station associated with the 1861 Baltimore riots, and Public 
School 103 and other resources that relate to the early life of 
Thurgood Marshall. The Department supports enactment of these 
two bills and recommends technical amendments to S. 521. 

S. 782 would direct the Secretary of Interior to publish a Bison 
Management Plan for Grand Canyon National Park within 180 
days of enactment which must include culling of bison by skilled, 
public volunteers and allow public volunteers to remove a full bison 
harvested from the park. The Department opposes S. 782 because 
it would disrupt an ongoing planning effort for managing bison at 
Grand Canyon National Park. And further, it may cause confusion 
about the National Park Service’s authorities to manage wildlife 
populations through a variety of means including the use of skilled 
volunteers. 

S. 873 would designate the approximately 2.6 million acres of na- 
tional wilderness preservation system located within Lake Clark 
National Park and Preserve as the J. S. Hammond Wilderness 
Area. The Department supports enactment of S. 873. 

S. 1483 would authorize a special resource study of the James 
Knox Polk home in Columbia, Tennessee. The Department sup- 
ports enactment of this legislation with amendments. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knox follows:] 



25 


STATEMENT OF VICTOR KNOX, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK PLANNING, 
FACILITIES AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE 
INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 145, TO 
REQUIRE THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE TO REFUND TO 
STATES ALL STATE FUNDS THAT WERE USED TO REOPEN AND TEMPORARILY 
OPERATE A UNIT OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM DURING THE OCTOBER 
2013 SHUTDOWN 


June 10, 2015 


Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide the 
Department of the Interior’s views on S. 145, a bill to require the Director of the National Park 
Service to refund to States all State funds that were used to reopen and temporarily operate a unit 
of the National Park System during the October 2013 shutdown. 

S. 145 requires the Director of the National Park Service to reimburse each State that provided 
funds to open and temporarily operate a unit (or units) of the National Park System in October 
2013, when there was a lapse in appropriations for most Federal government activities. The bill 
specifies that the reimbursement shall be carried out using funds appropriated for the National 
Park Service after enactment of this legislation. We estimate that the cost of reimbursing the 
States would be approximately $2 million. 

From October 1 through October 16, 2013, the National Park Service, along with other bureaus 
and offices of the Department of the Interior, implemented a shutdown of our activities due to a 
lapse in appropriations. Under the closure determination and notice issued by the Director of the 
National Park Service, and consistent with applicable law, the National Park Service closed and 
secured all 401 national parks across the country, suspended all activities, and furloughed more 
than 20,000 National Park Service employees. 

In response to the economic impacts that the park closures were having on many communities 
and local businesses, as the shutdown entered a second week. Secretary Jewell announced that 
the Department would consider agreements with Governors who indicated an interest and ability 
to fully fund National Park Service personnel to reopen specified national parks in their States. 
Six States - Arizona, Colorado, New York, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah - signed 
donation agreements with the Department to open a total of 13 park units that are all significant 
contributors to tourism in the States where they are located. State donations under these 
agreements totaled approximately $3.6 million. Once these agreements were signed and the 
funds were transferred, the National Park Service reopened the national parks in accordance with 
the specific agreements. 

Under the tenns of the agreements, the States donated to the National Park Service lump sum 
payments in advance to cover the cost of operating the parks for a specific number of days. 
Further, these agreements stipulated that funds donated and used to re-open the parks could not 
be returned to the States. The employees who returned to work in these parks during the 


1 



26 


shutdown were paid for these days out of the funds donated by the States. When Congress 
passed a continuing resolution providing appropriations for the first three and a half months of 
FY 2014 on October 16, 2013, the National Park Service was able to resume operations on 
October 17, 2013, and stop charging employee time against the funds that had been donated by 
the States. 

Once the shutdown ended, the National Park Service immediately began the process of 
reimbursing the six States for the portion of donated funding that was not expended to operate 
the parks, which totaled approximately $1.6 million. However, the National Park Service does 
not have the authority to reimburse States for the portion of funding that was expended 
(approximately $2 million); an act of Congress is needed for that. S. 145 would provide that 
authority. We would like to point out that, as written, the source of funds for repayment will be 
derived from appropriations made after the enactment of this bill, not from funds received by the 
parks in FY14or FY15. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and 1 would be happy to answer any questions you 
or other members of the subcommittee may have. 


2 



27 


STATEMENT OF VICTOR KNOX, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK PLANNING, 
FACILITIES AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE 
INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 146, TO 
AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR OR THE SECRETARY OF 
AGRICULTURE TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH STATES AND POLITICAL 
SUBDIVISIONS OF STATES PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION, IN 
WHOLE OR IN PART, OF PUBLIC LAND, UNITS OF THE NATIONAL PARK 
SYSTEM, UNITS OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM, AND UNITS 
OF THE NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM IN THE STATE DURING ANY PERIOD IN 
WHICH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR OR THE SECRETARY OF 
AGRICULTURE IS UNABLE TO MAINTAIN NORMAL LEVEL OF OPERATIONS AT 
THE UNITS DUE TO A LAPSE IN APPROPRIATIONS, AND FOR OTHER 
PURPOSES. 


June 10, 2015 


Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the 
views of the Department on S. 146, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior or the 
Secretary of Agriculture to enter into agreements with States and political subdivisions of States 
providing for the continued operation, in whole or in part, of public land, units of the National 
Park System, units of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and units of the National Forest 
System in the State during any period in which the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of 
Agriculture is unable to maintain normal level of operations at the units due to a lapse in 
appropriations, and for other purposes. 

The Department strongly opposes S. 146. We have a great deal of sympathy for the businesses 
and communities that experienced a disruption of activity and loss of revenue during the October 
2013 partial government shutdown and that stand to lose more if there is another funding lapse in 
the future. However, we disagree generally with the idea of enacting laws to try to lessen the 
impact of a future government shutdown for a few select governmental activities rather than 
protecting all such activities by avoiding a lapse in appropriations. We also believe that this 
legislation specifically, with its mandate to enter into agreements to reopen public lands at the 
request of a state, would be very difficult to execute. Furthermore, we are concerned that 
agreements to have states provide funding for activities that are inherently Federal in nature, 
even for a short period of time, would undermine the longstanding framework established by 
Congress for the management of Federal lands under the stewardship of the Department. 

S. 146 would require the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture to enter into 
agreements with States or their political subdivisions, upon their request, to accept funds to open 
National Park units. National Wildlife Refuges, Bureau of Land Management lands, and 
National Forests. The authority would be in effect only during a period when the Secretary is 
unable to operate and manage the units at normal levels. The bill would also provide for 
reimbursement for the amounts provided to the Secretaries to reopen the sites when 
appropriations are enacted providing retroactive funding, or when the State or political 
subdivision establishes that entrance fees were collected for the period covered by the agreement. 


I 



28 


If those requirements are not met, the Secretary would have discretionary authority to provide 
reimbursement to the states, subject to the availability of appropriations. 

The desire to avoid the kind of disappointment to the public and disruption of economic activity 
that results from a lapse in Federal appropriations is understandable. When the partial 
government shutdown occurred from October 1 through October 16, 2013, a lot of attention was 
focused on effects of closures of national parks, national wildlife refuges, public lands managed 
by the Bureau of Land Management, and national forests -- all places that are highly valued by 
the public for their recreational offerings and that serve as economic engines for the communities 
in which they are located. 

It was because of the critical importance of these sites that the Secretary of the Interior agreed to 
reopen several of them using donated funds during the partial shutdown. As the shutdown 
entered its second week, the National Park Service entered into donation agreements with six 
states to accept the donation of funds necessary to allow the National Park Service to temporarily 
reopen 13 national park units. In these cases, the states were concerned enough about the loss of 
economic activity associated with certain national parks to use their own funds to alleviate the 
impact of park closures. 

These agreements did help a select number of businesses and communities. However, they 
should not be held up as a model of how the Federal government should do business. The 
national parks that were opened during the shutdown were fortunate to be located in states that 
had the resources and political will to fund them. The National Park Service, the Bureau of Land 
Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which all seek to treat the land units under 
their stewardship equitably, have grave concerns about enshrining in law a process that favors 
units located in states willing to donate funds to operate them over those located in other states. 

Furthermore, the agreements were designed to be temporary, emergency measures for some 
individual situations, and would not necessarily work for operating all Federal lands. Even for 
those sites where agreements might work, the potential difficulty of executing agreements on the 
scale envisioned by S. 146 — every agreement that every state or political subdivision requests — 
at a time when most of the agencies’ staff would be furloughed, cannot be overstated. During 
the October 2013 partial government shutdown, it was an enormous burden on the National Park 
Service and the Department, with their skeletal staffs, to execute just six agreements to reopen 13 
park units. If a large number of states requested such agreements for a large number of sites in a 
future shutdown, the agencies would not have the capacity to respond to all of the requests. 

The 2013 Federal government shutdown had terrible impacts for American citizens, businesses, 
communities, states, and the economy as a whole. These impacts are summarized in the report 
released by the Office of Management and Budget entitled “Impacts and Costs of the October 
2013 Federal Government Shutdown” (November 2013). The report makes clear that the 
economic effects and disruption to lives and activities from the shutdown were felt far and wide. 
Enacting a law to try to avoid the impact of a future shutdown on specified activities is not a 
responsible alternative to simply making the political commitment to avoid a shutdown in the 
future by providing appropriations for all the vital functions the Federal government performs. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions you or 
any other members of the subcommittee may have. 

2 



29 


STATEMENT OF VICTOR KNOX, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK PLANNING, 
FACILITIES AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE 
INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 319, TO 
DESIGNATE A MOUNTAIN IN THE STATE OF ALASKA AS MOUNT DENALI. 

June 10, 2015 


Mr, Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the Interior’s views on 
S, 3 19, a bill to designate a mountain in the State of Alaska as Mount Denali. 

The National Park Service appreciates the long history and public interest for both the name 
Mount McKinley and the traditional Athabascan name, Denali. The Department respects the 
choice made by this legislation, and does not object to S. 319. 

Located in what is now Denali National Park and Preserve, the highest peak in North America 
has been known by many names. The National Park Service’s administrative history of the park 
notes that, “The Koyukon called it Deenaalee, the Lower Tanana named it Deenaadheet or 
Deemtadhee, the Dena’ina called it Dghelay Ka 'a, and at least six other Native groups had their 
own names for it. 

In the late 18th century various Europeans came calling, and virtually everyone who passed by 
was moved to comment on it. The Russians called it Buhhaia or Tenada, and though explorers 
from other nations were less specific, even the most hard-bitten adventurers were in awe of its 
height and majesty. 

No American gave it a name until Densmore’s Mountain appeared in the late 1880s, and the 
name that eventually stuck — Mount McKinley — was not applied until the waning days of the 
nineteenth century,” a gesture of support to then-President William McKinley. 

In 1975, the State of Alaska officially recognized Denali as the name of the peak, and requested 
action by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names to do the same. 

In 1980, Congress changed the name of Mount McKinley National Park to Denali National Park 
and Preserve (P.L, 96-487, Section 202), but did not act on the name change for the mountain. 


Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to answer any questions you 
or other members may have. 




30 


STATEMENT OF VICTOR KNOX, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK PLANNING, 
FACILITIES AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE 
INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 329, TO 
AMEND THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN 
SEGMENTS OF THE FARMINGTON RIVER AND SALMON BROOK IN THE STATE 
OF CONNECTICUT AS COMPONENTS OF THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 
SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 


June 10, 2015 


Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee today to present the 
views of the Department of the Interior on S. 329, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 
to designate certain segments of the Farmington River and Salmon Brook in the State of 
Connecticut as components of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes. 

The Department supports enactment of S. 329 with an amendment that is described later in this 
statement. The National Park Service’s study of the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook, 
transmitted to Congress on October 17, 2013, determined that the segments proposed for 
designation under this bill are eligible for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 
System. 

S. 329 would designate 35.3 miles of the Farmington River and the entire 26.4 miles of its major 
tributary, Salmon Brook, as part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, to be administered by the 
Secretary of the Interior. The segments would be managed in accordance with the Lower 
Farmington River and Salmon Brook Management Plan (June 2011) with the Secretary 
coordinating administration and management with a locally based management committee, as 
specified in the plan. The bill would authorize the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements 
with the State of Connecticut, the adjoining communities, and appropriate local planning and 
environmental organizations. S. 329 would also make an adjustment to the upper Farmington 
Wild and Scenic River, which was designated in 1 994, by adding 1 . 1 miles to the lower end of that 
14-mile designation. 

S. 329 would complete the wild and scenic river designation of the Farmington River in 
Connecticut by designating all of the mainstem Farmington River segments found to meet the 
criteria of eligibility and suitability. At the same time, S. 329 would provide for the continued 
operation of one existing hydroelectric facility - Rainbow Dam in Windsor - and allow for 
potential hydroelectric development of existing dams in the Collinsville stretch of the river, which 
is currently the subject of an active Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing 
proceeding sponsored by the Town of Canton. 

P.L. 109-370, the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Study Act of 2005, authorized the 
study of the segments proposed for designation in S. 329. The National Park Service conducted 
the study in close cooperation with the adjoining communities, the State of Connecticut, the 


1 



31 


Farmington River Watershed Association, the Stanley Black & Decker Corporation (owner of 
Rainbow Dam) and other interested local parties. 

Although the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires the development of a comprehensive river 
management plan within three years of the date of designation, it has become the practice of the 
National Park Service to prepare this plan as part of a study of potential wild and scenic rivers 
when much of the river runs through private lands. This allows the National Park Service to 
consult widely with local landowners, federal and state land management agencies, local 
governments, river authorities, and other groups that have interests related to the river prior to any 
recommendation for designation. Early preparation of the plan also assures input from these 
entities as well as users of the river on the management strategies that would be needed to protect 
the river’s resources. 

Technical assistance provided as a part of the study made possible the development of the Lower 
Farmington River and Salmon Brook Management Plan (June 201 1). This plan is based primarily 
around local partner actions designed to guide the management of the Lower Farmington River 
and Salmon Brook with or without a National Wild and Scenic River designation. 

The study concluded that the proposed segments of the Lower Farmington River and Salmon 
Brook are eligible and suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 
because of their free-flowing nature and outstandingly remarkable geology, water quality, 
biological diversity, cultural landscape, recreation values and local authority to protect and 
enhance these values. These findings substantiate the widely held view of the Farmington River 
as Connecticut’s premier, free-flowing river resource for a diversity of natural and cultural values, 
including one of New England’s most significant whitewater boating runs, regionally unique 
freshwater mussel populations, and outstanding examples of archaeological and historical sites 
and districts spanning Native American, colonial and early manufacturing periods. Salmon Brook 
is, in its own right, highly significant for outstanding water quality and significant cold water 
fishery. 

If S. 329 is enacted, the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook would be administered as a 
partnership wild and scenic river, similar to several other designations in the Northeast, including 
the upper Farmington River and the Eightmile River in Connecticut. This approach emphasizes 
local and state management solutions, and has proven effective as a means of protecting 
outstandingly remarkable natural, cultural and recreational resource values without the need for 
direct federal management or land acquisition. 

We recommend amending S, 329 to ensure that if operations of the Rainbow Dam were to be 
changed, wild and scenic river values upstream and downstream of the hydro project would be 
protected. We would be pleased to work with the sponsor and the committee on the appropriate 
language for that purpose. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you or 
other committee members may have regarding this bill. 


2 



32 


STATEMENT OF VICTOR KNOX, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK PLANNING, 
FACILITIES, AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE 
INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESPURCES, CONCERNING S. 403, TO 
REVISE THE AUTHORIZED ROUTE OF THE NORTH COUNTRY NATIONAL 
SCENIC TRAIL IN NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA AND TO EXTEND THE TRAIL 
INTO VERMONT TO CONNECT WITH THE APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC 
TRAIL, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 


June 10, 2015 


Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before 
you today to present the Department of the Interior’s views on S. 403, to revise the authorized 
route of the North Country National Scenic Trail in northeastern Minnesota and to extend the trail 
into Vermont to connect with the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and for other purposes. 

The Department supports enactment of S. 403. This legislation would make two critically 
important improvements to the North Country National Scenic Trail: it would reroute a portion of 
the trail in Minnesota around dense swampland, and it would link this trail to the Appalachian 
Trail, 

S. 403 would amend section 5(a)(8) of the National Trails System Act to revise the route of the 
trail in northeastern Minnesota and extend the trail beyond its current terminus in New York 
eastward into Vermont, increasing the total length of the trail from approximately 4,000 miles to 
approximately 4,600 miles. We note that although the legislated length of the trail is 3,200 miles, 
this figure was based upon estimates at the time of the passage of the bill that authorized the trail, 
and more accurate mapping has since shown the actual mileage to be closer to 4,000 miles. 

The North Country National Scenic Trail was authorized by Congress in 1980 to provide 
superlative outdoor recreation opportunities and conservation of nationally significant scenic, 
historic, natural and cultural qualities along the trail corridor, to provide a premier trail experience, 
and to encourage and assist volunteer citizen involvement in the planning, development, 
maintenance and management of the trail. The trail, which is one of six designated National 
Scenic Traits administered by the National Park Setv'ice, spans much of the northern United 
States, stretching from North Dakota to New York. 

The current authorized route of the trail in northeastern Minnesota traverses approximately 93 
miles of black spruce and tamarack swamp, extending westward from Jay Cooke State Park south 
of Duluth, to the Chippewa National Forest southwest of Grand Rapids. Because of the location 
and difficult environmental conditions within the swamp, no portion of this section of the trail has 
been constructed. Approximately seventy percent of the proposed revision — referred to as the 
Arrowhead Reroute - consists of three existing hiking trails: the Superior Hiking Trail, the Border 
Route Trail, and the Kekekabic Trail. These trails, which total approximately 400 miles, follow 
the north shore of Lake Superior and traverse the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in the 
Superior National Forest. The remaining portion of the Arrowhead Reroute ~ approximately 173 
miles - would be new trail located over a combination of public and private lands. The net total 


1 



33 


increase in the Minnesota portion of the North Country National Scenic Trail would be 
approximately 480 miles. 

Since 1987, Minnesota hiking groups have repeatedly asked the NPS to study the revised route. In 
response to these requests, the NPS conducted the Northeastern Minnesota Route Assessment 
between 1999 and 2004. In 2003 and 2004, the National Park Service held public meetings in 
Duluth, Ely, Grand Rapids, and Minneapolis, Minnesota. Public comments reflected broad overall 
support for the Arrowhead Reroute, and strong support among the affected public agencies and 
jurisdictions. The plan and environmental assessment were approved by the NPS on September 
30, 2004. 

The extension of the trail route into Vermont would add approximately 66 miles to the North 
Country National Scenic Trail, 40 of which are already existing trails. The addition would extend 
from the trail’s current terminus near Crown Point, New York, east to a point to be determined 
along the Long Trail - a National Recreation Trail in Vermont. The Long Trail then connects to 
the Appalachian National Scenic Trail at Maine Junction just east of Rutland, Vermont. 

In the fall of 2009, the National Park Service began a study of the potential extension of the North 
Country National Scenic Trail in Vermont, In Febmary 2010, three public meetings were held to 
announce the study and present conceptual corridors. Additional meetings were held with key 
stakeholders in October 2011. A public meeting to review the draft report was held on May 21 , 
2012. Public comments, and written and electronic responses, reflected broad overall support. 

The Feasibility Stutfy Corridor Plan and Environmental Assessment for Addison County, Vermont, 
was approved by the NPS on December 16, 2013. 

The NPS anticipates the cost of constructing and maintaining the Arrowhead reroute and the 
Vermont extension of the North Country National Scenic Trail would be manageable because the 
work would be done primarily by volunteers using hand tools, and current NPS staff would 
provide route planning and support for the volunteers who would help develop and maintain the 
path. 

As an example, the North Country Trail Association and partners have committed to developing 
the connecting trail segments that will be needed between the end of the Kekekabic Trail and the 
Chippewa National Forest in Minnesota. Funding would be needed to supply trail markers, 
signage, tools, equipment, and materials. Recent average expenditures for volunteer supplies have 
cost the North Country National Scenic Trail approximately $60,000 per year. The net increase of 
approximately 546 miles to the current trail would increase operational costs by approximately 
$7,000, split between NPS support and that independently generated by the trail chapters and 
affiliates. The NPS portions could be accommodated within the trail’s current budget. 

The portions of the North Country National Scenic Trail that have yet to be built have not been 
laid out in detail. Rather, the studies identified respective corridors several miles wide within 
which the trail would eventually be laid out. The flexibility provided by these corridors would 
allow the NPS and its partners to design routes that will minimize the amount of private land 
involved. 


2 



34 


Public Law 1 11-11, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, provides authority for 
Federal agencies to acquire lands or interests in lands from willing sellers for the North Country 
National Scenic Trail. As a National Scenic Trail based upon strong public-private partnerships 
and engaged volunteers, there is an opportunity to implement the proposed re-route and extension 
thorough a variety of actions and expenditures. Options for allowing access range from outright 
donation, to easements and access agreements facilitated by partner organizations, to fee simple 
acquisition from willing sellers. However, it is the intention of the NPS to pursue donations, 
easements, and agreements to ensure access whenever possible. Consequently, the NPS is unable 
to estimate land acquisition costs. However, efforts would be made to keep Federal expenditures 
to a minimum. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be glad to answer any questions that you or 
other members of the subcommittee may have. 


3 



35 


STATEMENT OF VICTOR KNOX, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK PLANNING, 
FACILITIES AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE 
INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 521, TO 
AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CONDUCT A SPECIAL 
RESOURCE STUDY OF PRESIDENT STATION IN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, AND 
FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 


June 10, 2015 


Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the 
Department of the Interior’s views on S. 521, to conduct a special resource study of President 
Station in Baltimore, Maryland, and for other purposes. 

The Department supports enactment of S. 521 with technical amendments. However, we believe 
that priority should be given to the 33 previously authorized studies for potential units of the 
National Park System, potential new National Heritage Areas, and potential additions to the 
National Trails System and National Wild and Scenic Rivers System that have not yet been 
transmitted to Congress. 

S. 521 authorizes a special resource study of the President Street Station in Baltimore, Maryland. 
This study would determine whether this site meets the National Park Service’s criteria for 
inclusion in the National Park System of national significance, suitability, and feasibility, and 
need for National Park Service management. The study would also consider other alternatives 
for preservation, protection, and interpretation of the resources by the Federal government. State 
or local government entities, or private and non-profit entities. Alternatives might include, for 
example, the designation of the site as an affiliated area of the National Park Service, where the 
National Park Service would provide technical assistance to the site but not own or manage it. 

We estimate the cost of the study to range from $200,000 to $300,000, based on similar types of 
studies conducted in recent years. 

The President Street Station was built by the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore Railroad. 
Opened in 1850, it served as the company’s passenger terminus with connections south to the 
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad terminal via horse-drawn track through the City of Baltimore. 
Originally consisting of a headhouse, a 208-feet long barrel vaulted train shed, and a freight 
house, only the headhouse remains today. The property is associated with the Baltimore Riot of 
1861, where members of the Massachusetts militia on their way to Washington were attacked by 
a mob as they transited the city, resulting in the deaths of four soldiers and twelve civilians. That 
event is considered the first act in the Civil War in which blood was shed. The station is also 
recognized by the National Park Service’s Network to Freedom program for its use by the 
General Vigilance Committee Anti-Slavery Society in Philadelphia, as well as other groups and 
individuals, to escape or aid others in escaping slavery. 


1 



36 


President Street Station is owned by the City of Baltimore. It is listed on the National Register 
of Historic Places and is included in the Baltimore National Heritage Area. It houses the 
Baltimore Civil War Museum which is operated by a state-chartered organization, the Friends of 
President Street Station, and is open to the public. 

We recommend two technical amendments, which are attached below: one to update the 
reference to the law that set requirements for special resource studies; the other to correct the 
name of the train station in the title of the bill. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any 
questions about this matter. 


Proposed amendments to S. 521, President Street Station Special Resource Study 

On page 3, lines 5-6, strike “section 8 of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. la-5)” and insert 
“section 100507 of title 54, United States Code”. 

Amend the title to read: “To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource 
study of President Street Station in Baltimore, Maryland, and for other purposes ”. 


2 



37 


STATEMENT OF VICTOR KNOX, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK PLANNING, 
FACILITIES AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE 
INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 610, TO 
AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CONDUCT A SPECIAL 
RESOURCE STUDY OF P.S. 103 IN WEST BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, AND FOR 
OTHER PURPOSES. 


June 10, 2015 


Mr. Chaimian and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the 
Department of the Interior’s views on S. 610, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct 
a special resource study of P.S, 103 in West Baltimore, Maryland, and for other purposes. 

The Department supports enactment of S. 610. However, we believe that priority should be 
given to the 33 previously authorized studies for potential units of the National Park System, 
potential new National Heritage Areas, and potential additions to the National Trails System and 
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System that have not yet been transmitted to Congress. 

S. 610 authorizes a special resource study of Public School 103 and other resources in the 
neighborhood that relate to the early life of Thurgood Marshall in Baltimore, Maryland. This 
study would determine whether this site meets the National Park Service’s criteria for inclusion 
in the National Park System of national significance, suitability, and feasibility, and need for 
National Park Service management. The study would also consider other alternatives for 
preservation, protection, and interpretation of the resources by the Federal government. State or 
local government entities, or private and non-profit entities. Alternatives might include, for 
example, the designation of the site as an affiliated area of the National Park Service, where the 
National Park Service would provide technical assistance to the site but not own or manage it. 
We estimate the cost of the study to range from $200,000 to $300,000, based on similar types of 
studies conducted in recent years, 

P.S. 103 was originally built in 1877 for West Baltimore’s white immigrant population but, in 
1911, it became a segregated African-American school serving the Upton community of West 
Baltimore. The school is significant for its role in the education of Thurgood Marshall, who is 
best known as the lead counsel for the landmark school desegregation case. Brawn v. Board of 
Education (1954) and as the first African-American Supreme Court Justice. Marshall’s life and 
his life’s work began in Baltimore; it is the city where he was born in 1908, where he began his 
public education, and where he won his first civil rights cases as a young attorney. Thurgood 
Marshal! attended P.S. 103 from U’ through 8* grade (1914 to 1921), 

Marshall’s accomplishments in systematically dismantling the legal framework for Jim Crow 
segregation are the foundation upon which the success of the Civil Rights Movement was built. 
P.S. 103 is owned by the City of Baltimore and is included in the Baltimore National Heritage 
Area. 


1 



38 


Mr. Chairman, this concludes our prepared statement. 1 would be happy to respond to any 
questions about this matter. 


2 



39 


STATEMENT OF VICTOR KNOX, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK PLANNING, 
FACILITIES AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE 
INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 782, TO 
DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ESTABLISH A BISON 
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK. 


June 10, 2015 


Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before 
you today to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 782, a bill to direct the 
Secretary of the Interior to establish a bison management plan for Grand Canyon National Park. 

The Department opposes S. 782 because it would disrupt an ongoing planning effort for 
managing bison at Grand Canyon National Park, and may cause confusion about the National 
Park Service’s existing authorities to manage wildlife populations through a variety of means, 
including the use of skilled volunteers. 

S. 782 would direct the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to publish a bison management plan 
for Grand Canyon National Park (park) no later than 1 80 days after the enactment of this 
legislation. The bill would require the plan to include reduction, through humane lethal culling 
by skilled public volunteers and by other nonlethal means, of the population of bison in the park 
that the Secretary determines are detrimental to the use of the park. The bill provides that 
notwithstanding the Act of March 2, 1929 (16 U.S.C. 198c), which is applicable only to Rocky 
Mountain National Park, or any other provision of law, a skilled public volunteer may remove a 
full bison harvested from the park. The bill also requires the Secretary to coordinate with the 
Arizona Game and Fish Commission regarding the development and implementation of the 
management plan, and that the Secretary comply with all applicable Federal environmental laws 
(including regulations), including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). And, 
the bill clarifies that nothing in the Act applies to the taking of wildlife in the park for any 
purpose other than the implementation of the management plan. 

The National Park Service (NPS) has several tools available for directly managing ungulates to 
meet resource management objectives. These tools include both lethal and non-lethal methods 
for removing ungulates when the NPS determines that population numbers are too high. Under 
existing authorities, lethal removal of ungulates can be accomplished by using National Park 
Service employees, contractors, or skilled volunteers, or a combination of the above. Public 
hunting can also be used in parks where Congress has expressly authorized it, although hunting 
is not authorized at Grand Canyon National Park and S. 782 does not propose to do so. The 
appropriate means of culling is selected based the type of park unit, location, resource issue, 
conditions at the park, funding, public input, logistics and other concerns. For these reasons, the 
NPS has not established one method as preferred over any of the others, and analyzes the full 
suite of tools available for each situation. The preferred action is selected through a planning 
process that is accompanied by a NEPA review of reasonable and available alternatives. 



40 


The NPS has typically used professional sharp shooters to cull whitetail deer in parks in the 
eastern United States, including at Rock Creek Park in Washington, D.C., and Catoctin Mountain 
Park in Maryland. Professional sharp shooters were also used at Channel Island National Park in 
California to cull elk on Santa Rosa Island. In other cases, including Rocky Mountain National 
Park in Colorado and Theodore Roosevelt National Park in South Dakota, skilled volunteers 
have been used to cull elk. 

With regard to Grand Canyon National Park, the NPS is currently in the process of developing 
the alternatives for the Grand Canyon Bison Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement (DEIS). We expect to have the DEIS out for public review and comment in the winter 
of 2016. As part of the alternatives development process with our cooperating agencies, 
including Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), we are considering lethal removal, or 
"culling", of bison as an option for reducing bison density in the park. The use of skilled 
volunteers in the culling operation would be part of the analysis. If the final plan includes the 
use of skilled volunteers in a culling operation, we would collaborate with AGFD on 
implementation including the requirements and protocols for selecting volunteers, and would 
follow applicable federal law and regulation with regard to disposition of carcasses. S. 782 
would disrupt this planning effort. 

Further, although S. 782 requires the Secretary to comply with NEPA in developing the bison 
management plan, the legislation is contrary to NEPA to several ways. For example, by 
directing the Secretary to put into place a plan to reduce bison using skilled volunteers, the bill 
appears to circumvent the NEPA process by predetermining a specific outcome or alternative. 
This approach is counter to NEPA, which requires Federal land managers to consider a range of 
reasonable alternatives, including no action, and to provide opportunities for public engagement 
during the NEPA process. Additionally, attempting to complete a plan in 1 80 days as proposed 
in the legislation also runs counter to NEPA, and our efforts to work collaboratively with our 
partners and neighbors, as it complicates our ability to adequately involve the public, tribes, 
other stakeholders, and cooperating agencies, including the AGFD, 

Finally, the Department is also concerned that by attempting to provide this duplicative authority 
to use skilled volunteers in culling operations, S. 782 may cause confusion about the NFS’s 
existing authority to carry out culling operations using skilled volunteers. While the NFS’s 
authority to manage ungulate populations through lethal reduction has been upheld in court, S. 
782 seems to call that authority into question, which could cause unnecessary confusion and be 
counterproductive to wildlife management efforts across the National Park System. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or 
the other members of the subcommittee may have. 


2 



41 


STATEMENT OF VICTOR KNOX, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK PLANNING, 
FACILITIES AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE 
INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 873, TO 
DESIGNATE THE WILDERNESS WITHIN THE LAKE CLARK NATIONAL PARK 
AND PRESERVE IN THE STATE OF ALASKA AS THE JAY S. HAMMOND 
WILDERNESS AREA. 


June 10, 2015 


Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the Interior’s views on 
S. 873, a bill to designate the wilderness within the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve in the 
State of Alaska as the Jay S. Hammond Wilderness Area, 

The Department supports S. 873, which would designate the approximately 2.6 million acres of 
National Wilderness Preservation System land located within the Lake Clark National Park and 
Preserve as the “Jay S. Hammond Wilderness Area.” This designation is a fitting and 
appropriate way to recognize Hammond’s significant contributions to the Alaska National 
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), the National Park System, and Lake Clark National 
Park and Preserve, which was an important part of an extraordinary legacy of public service. 

In 1 946, following his military service as a fighter pilot during World War 11, Jay Hammond 
came to Alaska and became a bush pilot, guide and trapper. In 1949, Hammond graduated from 
the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, and went to work for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As 
a U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service employee, Hammond conducted wildlife surveys of the Lake 
Clark area and located a homestead along Lake Clark. He lived with his wife Bella in their 
lakeside homestead from about 1982 until his death on August 2, 2005, Bella still resides in the 
homestead and enjoys the splendid views of the wilderness area. 

In 1959, Hammond was elected to the state legislature and served several terms before being 
elected as a state senator in 1967, From 1972 to 1974, Hammond was the mayor of the Bristol 
Bay Borough. In 1 974, he was elected Governor of Alaska, and served the state in that role until 
1 982. During his tenure, he oversaw the building and the opening of the Alaska Pipeline and 
preserved a large portion of the oil lease revenues in the form of a Permanent Fund which has 
been in existence for three decades. As a governor who sought to balance the development of 
Alaska’s energy resources with the conservation of the state’s vast untouched natural resources, 
he worked with the Federal government to achieve enactment of the legislation that became 
ANILCA, 

ANILCA protected 104 million acres of land. It added more than 40 million acres in 10 new 
units of the National Park System, including the 3.86 million-acre Lake Clark National Park and 
Preserve. The law also designated the 2,6 million acres of wilderness within Lake Clark 
National Park and Preserve. Governor Hammond later said that what President Carter had done 
with the signing of ANILCA was “locking Alaska open” for future generations of Americans to 
enjoy and preserve for all time. 



42 


The National Park Service Management Policies 2006 states that “to be permanently 
commemorated in a national park is a high honor, affording a degree of recognition that implies 
national importance.” The policies support the commemorative naming of national park 
resources only in cases where there is a compelling justification for the recognition. In general, a 
compelling justification involves an association between the park and the person that is of 
exceptional importance, as well as a lapse of at least five years since the person’s death. The 
designation of wilderness within Lake Clark National Park and Preserve in honor of Jay S, 
Hammond meets these criteria. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to answer any questions you 
or other members may have. 



43 


STATEMENT OF VICTOR KNOX, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK PLANNING, 
FACILITIES AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE 
INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES CONCERNING S. 1483, TO 
AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO STUDY THE SUITABILITY 
AND FEASIBILITY OF DESIGN ATING THE JAMES K POLK HOME IN COLUMBIA, 
TENNESSEE, AS A UNIT OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER 
PURPOSES. 

June 10, 2015 


Mr, Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the Interior’s 
testimony regarding S. 1483, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the 
suitability and feasibility of designating the James K. Polk home in Columbia, Tennessee, as a 
unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes. 

The Department supports enactment of this legislation with amendments described later in this 
testimony. However, we believe that priority should be given to the 33 previously authorized 
studies for potential units of the National Park System, potential new National Heritage Areas, 
and potential additions to the National Trails System and National Wild and Scenic Rivers 
System that have not yet been transmitted to Congress, 

S, 1483 authorizes a special resource study of the James K, Polk home in Columbia, Tennessee, 
This study would determine whether this site meets the National Park Service’s criteria for 
inclusion in the National Park System of national significance, suitability, and feasibility, and 
need for National Park Service management. The National Park Service recently conducted a 
reconnaissance survey that preliminarily evaluated the James K, Polk home and found that, 
because the site has the potential to meet the National Park Service’s criteria for inclusion in the 
National Park System, further study was warranted. 

The study would also consider other alternatives for preservation, protection, and interpretation 
of the resources by the Federal government. State or local government entities, or private and 
non-profit entities. Alternatives might include, for example, the designation of the site as an 
affiliated area of the National Park Service, where the National Park Service would provide 
technical assistance to the site but not own or manage it. We estimate the cost of the study to 
range from $200,000 to $300,000, based on similar types of studies conducted in recent years, 

James Knox Polk was born in Mecklenberg County, North Carolina, on November 2, 1795, In 
1806, at the age of eleven, he moved with his family to Tennessee, settling in what is now Maury 
County, Samuel Polk, his father, purchased three lots in the town of Columbia in 1816 and 
constructed a two-story brick house (the present Polk Home) on the corner of West Seventh 
Street and South High Street, Samuel and his wife Jane remained in the house until their deaths 
in 1827 and 1852, respectively. 


1 



44 


James K. Polk lived at the home after graduating from the University of North Carolina at 
Chapel Hill and for the next few years as he traveled to Nashville to read law with Felix Grundy. 
While living with his family and passing the bar in 1820, Polk began a successful law practice in 
Columbia and campaigned for the state legislature. Though Samuel and Jane Polk’ s house in 
Columbia was only a short-term home for James K. Polk, it is the only extant residence 
associated with the eleventh President, besides the White House, and marks the beginning of his 
political career. He moved to a new home a few blocks away when he married Sarah Childress 
of Murfreesboro on January 1, 1824. 

The Polk Home in Columbia remained in the family until 1862 and then changed owners several 
times before it was purchased by the State of Tennessee in 1929. At the same time, a descendant 
of the Polk family established the James K. Polk Memorial Association of Nashville and the 
James K. Polk Memorial Auxiliary of Columbia committed to "operate, maintain, preserve, and 
restore" the Polk Ancestral Home and properties, and also to "perpetuate the memory of the 
eleventh President of the United States." The Memorial Association opened the home to the 
public in 1929. 

In 1937, the State acquired the adjacent lot to the south and reconstructed the kitchen 
outbuilding. In 1941, the State bought the next-door Sisters’ House; an 1818 residence 
constructed by James K. Polk’s brother-in-law and inhabited by two of his sisters and their 
families. Additional land was added to the site in 1953 and 1961, expanding the garden. In 
1961, the Polk home was designated a National Historic Landmark. In 2009, with private 
funding, the Memorial Association purchased an 1882 church on the same block and renovated 
the space into a state-of-the-art exhibit facility. The renovated church, Polk Presidential Hall, 
has hosted traveling and original exhibits related to the U.S. Presidency and American society 
and culture during the Polk period. Two privately owned commercial buildings remain on the 
same block as the Polk Home, between the Polk Presidential Hall and the reconstructed kitchen. 

Although the site is owned by the State (with the exception of Polk Presidential Hall), the 
Memorial Association still administers and operates the James K. Polk Home and Museum while 
owning and preserving over 1,300 artifacts and original documents directly relating to President 
Polk. The Memorial Association also offers educational programs on President Polk to regional 
and national audiences. The Association has an eight-member Board of Directors that employs 
one full-time professional Executive Director and one full-time Curator of Collections. Two 
paid docents staff the Sisters’ House and provide house tours and educational programs for the 
10,000 to 20,000 annual visitors. 

S. 1483 includes certain requirements for the study which we recommend deleting. Specifically, 
we urge deleting section 3(c)(5), which would require an analysis of the effect of designation as a 
unit of the National Park System on existing commercial and recreational activities, and on activities 
concerning energy production and transmission infrastructure, and on the authority of state and local 
governments to manage those activities. We also urge deleting section 3(c)(6), which would require 
an identification of any authorities that would compel or permit the Secretary of the Interior to 
influence or participate in local land use decisions or place restrictions on non-federal lands. 


2 



The purpose of conducting a special resource study is to determine whether a resource meets the 
criteria for inclusion in the National Park System and, if it does not, to provide information on 
alternative means to protect the resource. We believe that the special resource study requirements 
under existing law result in a sufficient amount of information and analysis of the effects of including 
a resource in the National Park System. These additional requirements could potentially increase the 
cost of the study and the time required to complete it. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that 
you or other members of the subcommittee may have. 



46 


Senator Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. Knox. 

Now we will begin questioning. Senator Heinrich and I will defer 
our questions until after others go. Senator Alexander will go first 
and then Senator Warren. 

Senator Alexander. Well thanks, Senator Cassidy. That is very 
generous of you and Senator Heinrich. 

I am glad to see you and Senator Warren in different seats than 
I usually see you in our Committee. 

Mr. & 10 X, I am delighted that the Department supports legisla- 
tion to take the next step in making President Polk’s home part of 
the National Park Service. 

I mentioned earlier how important President Polk was in our his- 
tory and how interesting he is. He kept a diary every night at the 
White House, and this was in the 1840’s or so. I have read it all 
the way through. He must have written for an hour, an hour and 
a half at night. It is a fascinating thing, I mean, as I mentioned 
to you earlier, it would say 9 p.m.. Senator Houston (that would 
be Sam Houston) showed up for an interview and stayed two and 
a half hours with some other Senator talking to the President. 
Then I guess he wrote this all down later after that by candlelight. 

He had two secretaries. That was his whole staff. He would 
spend the morning interviewing people who wanted jobs. If there 
was a treaty he had to read it, and if there was a message to the 
Senate, he had to write it. 

He spent four years, and as I said, he had four major objectives 
and he accomplished them all basically expanding the United 
States all the way to Texas, Oregon, and California. 

But one other thing he did was this. He signed the bill that cre- 
ated the Department of Interior, the agency that includes the Na- 
tional Park system. Now my question is don’t you think it would 
be appropriate for the Presidential home of the President who cre- 
ated the Department of Interior, the home of the National Park 
Service, to be managed by the National Park Service? 

Mr. Knox. Senator, President Polk was a fascinating man, and 
it’s really interesting to think about that time in our nation’s his- 
tory and what the job of the President was. I mean, as compared 
to now. So it’s fascinating to hear you talk about that. 

We definitely support moving forward with this study which is 
really the next step in potential park designation, and we think 
that’s the right thing to do to complete the study and make a clear 
recommendation to this Committee and to the Congress on whether 
it should be designated a unit of the National Park system. 

Thank you. 

Senator Alexander. Thank you. How long will it take to com- 
plete a special resource study of this sort? 

Mr. Knox. These studies, I think, our average length to complete 
them is about three years. 

Senator Alexander. About three years? 

Mr. Knox. Yes. 

Senator Alexander. Anything we can do to help make it easier 
for you to get that done more rapidly? 

Mr. Knox. Well as is in our full testimony, I don’t know if this 
makes it easier, but as is in our full testimony we have about 33, 
a backlog of about 33 study bills that the Congress has passed that 



47 


we’re working on or beginning to work on. And we definitely want 
to get those done first and then begin working on any new bills. 

Senator Alexander. Well, I would hope that you would give as 
much priority as you can to this home because, as I mentioned, ac- 
cording to Arthur Schlesinger survey of historians, Polk was 
ranked ninth among the presidents, among the near greats. 

The other thing to consider is that if the Park Service were to 
enter into this kind of recommendation or recommend that the 
Government do it, there is a dedicated group of citizens in Colum- 
bia who support the home. They are not able to support it in the 
way Monticello or the Hermitage are, but they support it. With a 
partnership between the Park Service and this group of volunteers, 
I think, that the home, this home south of Nashville, would be a 
fascinating place and an educational source to help children and 
adults remember that important part of American history. 

So I thank you for coming, and I appreciate the Department’s 
work to take the first step. This would be the second step, and I 
hope you will decide to recommend that President Polk be remem- 
bered in this way. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Cassidy. Senator Alexander, thank you. 

How many presidents hail from Tennessee? 

Senator Alexander. Well we claim three, Jackson, Polk and An- 
drew Johnson. 

Senator Cassidy. Okay. 

Senator Alexander. Others have tried. [Laughter.] 

Senator Cassidy. Senator Warren? 

Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to add my 
congratulations for your ascending to the Chairmanship of the Sub- 
committee, and I am looking forward to working with you. 

Mr. Knox, I am really glad that you are here today, because I 
am a big believer in the work that your agency does. 

I know that the big national parks out West get most of the at- 
tention but my husband, Bruce, and I are avid hikers and we know 
how lucky we are to be able to explore the many areas within Mas- 
sachusetts that your agency supports. Bruce and I just walked 
Cape Cod National Seashore on Saturday, and we live within walk- 
ing distance of Longfellow House and General Washington’s head- 
quarters which are also managed by the Park Service. 

Massachusetts has some great national parks, and today I came 
here because I wanted to talk to you about the Taunton River. 
After years of hard work by local Massachusetts’ communities and 
by Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Ted Kennedy, in 2009 
the Taunton River was named a wild and scenic river. Now that 
is a term of art, not just descriptive, and this wild and scenic des- 
ignation helps preserve our rich colonial history. It protects a 
uniquely diverse ecosystem throughout its entire 40 miles. 

The National Park Service describes the river as, “Perhaps the 
most diverse and intact coastal ravine ecosystem in Southern New 
England and the largest freshwater contributor to the Narragan- 
sett Bay estuary in Rhode Island.” In other words, it is very impor- 
tant to us in Massachusetts. It is very important in the region, and 
we think that makes it important to the country. 



48 


Unfortunately, as Congressman Joe Kennedy recently brought to 
the National Park Service’s attention, the average wild and scenic 
river managed by the Park Service received four times as much 
funding as the Taunton River. As you know. Federal support for 
wild and scenic rivers is critical to leverage other supports of fund- 
ing that we work on. So I am concerned about the impact of these 
unfair funding levels on the Taunton River. 

Mr. Knox, I know of no reason that the Taunton River would re- 
ceive such an inequitable level of Federal funding. I just want to 
ask you if you would commit to working with me to ensure that the 
Taunton River receives adequate support in the future. 

Mr. Knox. Senator Warren, I’m aware that in the President’s 
budget request for FWlb that’s before the Congress there is some 
differences in the funding levels for the wild and scenic rivers. That 
is now with the Congress, and certainly Congress gets to decide 
what to do with the President’s proposal. 

I am not aware of the reasons for those differences, and so I cer- 
tainly could respond back to you with information on that.We cer- 
tainly would look forward to working with you on the President’s 
FY17 proposal to see if that could be rectified. 

Senator Warren. Good. As I say, look, I am a supporter of what 
you do. I want to see us do adequate funding for the wild and sce- 
nic rivers for the other parts of the work of the Park Service, but 
I also want to make sure that the money that is allocated to wild 
and scenic rivers is distributed equitably. 

I know that in a case like this we are talking about very modest 
amounts of money, but it would make a big difference in commu- 
nities like Fall River and Somerset and Taunton and others 
throughout the region. 

So I truly appreciate the great work that you and your agency 
have done in Massachusetts and across the country. I look forward 
to working with you to make sure that the natural beauty of the 
Taunton River remains protected for generations to come. I hope 
that we can work on that. 

Mr. Knox. Great. 

Senator Warren. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Cassidy. Thank you. Senator Warren. 

Senator Daines? 

Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Knox, in my home state of Montana there is a drainage in 
the Beartooth Mountains as part of the Absaroka Beartooth Wil- 
derness. In fact I spent a lot of days growing up backpacking all 
over that great part of my state. That drainage, called the East 
Rosebud, is especially worthy of a wild and scenic designation. In 
fact, protection of the East Rosebud Creek is unanimously sup- 
ported by landowners living adjacent to the designation and up 
through the drainage. It is really hard to find a more unanimously 
supported protection bill in Montana. 

In the House I introduced a bill to protect this drainage that re- 
flects similar concepts as reflected in Senator Murphy’s wild and 
scenic designation of the Farmington River, like protecting private 
property and other activities. I plan to reintroduce this bill in the 



49 


Senate along with Senator Tester and then Representative Zinke 
in the House will be doing the same. 

Mr. Knox, I am interested to hear your thoughts on the impor- 
tance of partnering with states and local governments like the co- 
operative agreements authorized in the Murphy bill. How do these 
cooperative agreements help to effectively manage the river seg- 
ments protected under the act? 

Mr. Knox. So Senator, the cooperative agreements similar to, for 
the Farmington and Salmon Brook that have been put in place 
really reflect the views of the communities along the river. And as 
you can imagine along Farmington and the Salmon Brook there are 
a number of communities. 

Senator Murphy talked about ten different communities that are 
part of that partnership, and it reflects their views on the manage- 
ment of the river while protecting its values for recreation, you 
know, the scenic values of the river and preserving those natural 
resources. 

So it’s really the Federal Government helping those local commu- 
nities protect what’s important to them. 

Senator Daines. I was intrigued in looking a little more into that 
proposed designation, the protections of the operation of that Rain- 
bow Dam that is referenced. Where is the Rainbow Dam? I am not 
familiar with that area. I could tell you about the East Rosebud in 
Montana, I backpacked all over that part of the country, but I do 
not know about Senator Murphy’s area. Where is the Rainbow 
Dam located in relation to the river segments that are protected 
under the act? 

Mr. Knox. So, Senator, it’s along the lower Farmington River, 
and it’s below where the Salmon Brook comes into the Lower 
Farmington River so that — and it’s I don’t know how many miles, 
probably ten miles or so, upstream of the Connecticut River. 

Senator Daines. And would it be part of the wild and scenic des- 
ignation? Is it in that? 

Mr. Knox. It is not. It’s excluded from the designation. 

Senator Daines. Okay, but how far away is that from where the 
wild and scenic designation is? 

Mr. Knox. Well, there’s an exclusion area that’s maybe five 
miles, four or five miles long. 

Senator Daines. Okay, what protects that area where the dam 
is located? 

Mr. Knox. And it’s protected — correct. And then the wild and 
scenic river extends on either side of the exclusion area. 

Senator Daines. Okay, great, good. I yield back my time. 

Senator Cassidy. Thank you. Senator Daines. 

Senator Heinrich. 

Senator Heinrich. Senator Daines, is the East Rosebud, is that 
Forest Service or is that Park Service? 

Senator Daines. The Forest Service. 

Senator Heinrich. I look forward to working with you on that. 

Mr. Knox, I wanted to ask you a related question that Senator 
Daines brought up regarding S. 329. In the Farmington wild and 
scenic river designation you have suggested that the bill should in- 
clude language making clear that any future changes to the oper- 



50 


ation of that Rainbow Dam include protection for the wild and sce- 
nic river’s values. 

I wanted to ask do you agree that as it is presently configured 
that the operation of the dam and the reservoir is compatible with 
this designation? And just to make sure I understand your perspec- 
tive, I wanted to ask is the concern that, if the dam were to be ex- 
panded at some point or operation changed in a way that reduced 
in stream flows that that would somehow, that that would impact 
adversely the wild and scenic river? 

Mr. Knox. Senator, I might have to get back to you on some of 
the specifics of your question. But in general the answer is your 
understanding is correct that the current operations are compatible 
with the wild and scenic values and that future changes could 
somehow affect the flow regimes or whatever in the river that 
would change those values and degrade those values. 

Senator Heinrich. Okay, thank you. 

On S. 1483, the James Polk home study, my understanding is 
that the Polk home is currently owned by the State of Tennessee 
and is presently administered as a historic site. So that its use, if 
included in the park system, would essentially be unchanged. 
Doesn’t your standard study criteria under the General Authorities 
Act allow you to address issues that would be relevant to the po- 
tential park designation without requiring you to spend time ana- 
lyzing additional issues not directly related to suitability? Because 
there is a whole list of things. 

Mr. Knox. I’m not sure I completely understand the question, 
but we have four criteria. One is national significance. The second 

is 

Senator Heinrich. I think as the actual bill is constructed there 
are a number of things required of you to analyze that are not di- 
rectly related to suitability or feasibility or to the four standard cri- 
teria that the Park Service looks at. 

Mr. Knox. That’s correct. The bill as written requires us to look 
at its impact on energy production and transmission. It requires us 
to look at would it impact the authority of the state or local govern- 
ments to manage local properties. 

Senator Heinrich. I am just saying in a case like this where 
clearly the use is not really changing from, so much as the land- 
lord, are you still required to do that kind of duplicative analysis? 

Mr. Knox. Well, our position is that additional analysis is unnec- 
essary to study the significance and appropriateness of this home 
being added as a unit of the National Park system and that it 
could be quite complex and require, you know. Senator Alexander 
was concerned about the length of time it would take. It could take 
much more time and more money to complete that additional anal- 
ysis. 

Senator Heinrich. Great. 

I am going to leave you with one more question then I will wait 
until the second round to get into a little bit more detail. Regarding 
S. 782, the Grand Canyon Bison Management bill, I just wanted 
to make sure we are all on the same page. Does the Park Service 
agree that the bison herd is damaging park resources in Grand 
Canyon National Park? 

Mr. Knox. Yes. 



51 


Senator Heinrich. Great. And that it is too large and needs to 
be reduced? 

Mr. Knox. Yes. 

Senator Heinrich. Okay. 

I will get to my second round and go into a little bit more detail 
on that. 

Mr. Knox. Thank you. 

Senator Heinrich. Thanks. 

Senator Cassidy. Senator Flake? 

Senator Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Heinrich, 
thank you for letting me barge in on this Subcommittee. 

Let me just followup with regard to the Grand Canyon Bison 
Management Act. You mentioned in your testimony that the objec- 
tion to the bill is that the 180-day timeframe would complicate 
public engagement efforts that the National Park Service is going 
through. Is that correct? 

Mr. Knox. Yes, Senator. 

We’re underway with the plan. We hope to — we plan to release 
the Bison Management Plan for public review early in 2016. Pas- 
sage of this bill would, you know, change how we’re working on the 
plan significantly, and we think we’re moving along and can bring 
that forward and get public comment early next year. 

Senator Flake. There were public meetings held in May 2014, I 
believe. Has there been any public engagement since that time? 

Mr. Knox. I’m not sure of the details of public engagement since 
then. We did public scoping back in 2014 which is getting, you 
know, kind of general ideas on the issue from the public and took 
that to begin developing the alternatives for the plan. 

Senator Flake. Alright. 

It was a little unclear. I guess you are saying early in 2016 the 
plan will be ready because it said winter of 2016. We do not know 
if that means late 2015 or winter, a year later, December 2016 or 
January of 2016. 

You are saying early 2016 which would mean January? 

Mr. Knox. Well I’m not sure January, but sometime in the win- 
ter months of early 2016. 

Senator Flake. One thing brought up as well is perhaps the cost 
to this. I know we do use sharp shooters to cull white-tailed deer 
in parks in the U.S., in the Eastern U.S., and we cull elk on Chan- 
nel Island. Do you know how much the Park Service pays for that 
kind of arrangement? 

Mr. Knox. No, Senator, I don’t but I could get you that informa- 
tion. 

Senator Flake. Okay. Alright. Well that would be nice in terms 
of comparative cost to see if that is really a concern. 

Senator Flake. You explain in your testimony that in both the 
Rocky Mountain National Park and the Theodore Roosevelt Na- 
tional Park the Park Service uses skilled volunteers to cull the elk 
population there. What type of NEPA instrument was used in each 
of these cases? How long did it take for the Park Service to develop 
these plans? 

Mr. Knox. My understanding is they’re both EIS documents. I 
don’t know the length of time. 

Senator Flake. Alright. 



52 


Mr. Knox. I’ll have to get back to you on that. 

Senator Flake. Alright. 

Our concern is, this is a problem now. It is going to be a growing 
problem, and the longer we go here when it takes two and a half 
years or so total to develop a plan and all we have is well, maybe, 
it will be done or we think it will be done early 2016 . 

In Yellowstone Park, I think, there are issues with bison there. 
This is one of the posters and pamphlets you are giving out to peo- 
ple saying “Keep your Distance” because the issues there do not ap- 
proach wildlife including bison here. 

Now I do not know if the beefalo or the hybrid version is any 
more docile, but we might be approaching issues here if we do not 
hurry up. I would just encourage us to move ahead in this area 
more quickly. 

I recognize the opposition of the bill and the timeframe. We 
would not feel a need to put a timeframe if we were moving ahead 
more expeditiously, and it just seems to be taking far too much 
time here. 

With regard to one of the other bills very quickly, the National 
Park Access Act. You said that you do not want to shield some 
parts of the Federal Government from the effects of a shut down. 
We do not want to shut down. Many of us were not in favor of any 
kind of shut down. But in case it does happen, if a state or local 
government is willing to fund these activities that the Park Service 
is undertaking, I would hope that we would work with them quick- 
ly. That is all we are trying to do here. While the Interior Depart- 
ment waited a week or two that cost Arizona a significant amount 
of money. Had the decision been made more quickly to work with 
the state and to move ahead it would have been better for the 
parks and certainly better for the population in Arizona. So that 
is why we feel the need to offer this legislation. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator Cassidy. Thank you. 

Senator Cantwell? 

Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Knox, I know we do not have any bills on the agenda regard- 
ing this, but I know you are heading up the National Park Service 
team on the implementation of the Manhattan Project. So I just 
wanted to ask about that. If you could tell me if you have made 
any decisions about siting the park headquarters and whether 
Hanford is still under consideration and also about, you know, just 
decisions — well, answer the first question and I will get to the sec- 
ond question. 

Mr. Knox. Well Senator, first of all, I want to thank you for 
championing the bill that created the Manhattan Project National 
Historical Park. I have had the great pleasure of visiting with the 
National Park Service team, the communities of Oak Ridge, Los Al- 
amos and Hanford and saw the huge public support, local support, 
for that park in each of those communities. 

And each of those resources, each of those areas has a different 
part of the story to tell, and each is equally important. We have 
made no decision at this point on location of a headquarters. And 
we’re probably, you know, a ways away from making those organi- 
zational decisions. 



53 


Senator Cantwell. Okay. 

Mr. Knox. But I would like to commit to you, Senator, that we 
would look at the relatively equal staffing levels, equal importance 
in each of the communities because each have a clearly important 
part of the story. 

Senator Cantwell. There are many sites within the Manhattan 
Project that help us tell the story, like the high school building and 
the construction camp and the White Bluffs, so hopefully you are 
taking all that into consideration in making decisions about what 
should be included? 

Mr. Knox. Yes, Senator. 

The legislation that was passed requires Hanford B reactor to be 
part of this new national historical park and then there’s a number 
of properties at all the other, all three sites, that are eligible to be 
within the boundary, both within the boundary of the park. 

And we’re taking — working with the Department of Energy for 
all the DOE-administered areas to take a hard look at which of 
those sites could, should be part of the park. And they would be 
included in the agreement that we are working with, with the De- 
partment of Energy and that we hope to have out for public com- 
ment in the next month or so. 

Senator Cantwell. Well, you can see from visiting the site that 
transportation through the DOE’s site and these facilities is an 
issue. We just have to figure this out and get it right so that people 
can have access because obviously it is a beautiful area, and there 
is a story to be told. 

Mr. Knox. Absolutely. 

Senator Cantwell. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Cassidy. Senator King? 

Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Several points. Last year we had an unfortunate experience at 
Acadia National Park in Maine where the concessionaire who had 
had the concession there for something like 80 years, a local com- 
pany, lost out in the bidding process. It is okay to lose in a bidding 
process, but we found, to our astonishment afterwards, and I dis- 
cussed this with several of your people, that there was no consider- 
ation given whatsoever to prior performance or quality of perform- 
ance. 

It would be like going into a car dealer and the only question is 
price, not quality or how well it drove or what its record of per- 
formance was. I am astonished that the process got that far with- 
out somebody saying well, how people did in the past should be rel- 
evant in considering their bid because what you end up with is a 
large national company that is very good at bidding and a small, 
local company that is very good at performing. Performance should 
be a factor. 

I would urge you, if this is something that needs a legislative fix, 
based upon the statute in 1998, let us know. Otherwise I hope you 
will modify your procedures in such a way as to be able to do the 
common sense thing which is look at both value, performance and 
price of when you are analyzing these because this was a big dis- 
ruption in Maine. Lots of local jobs went away, and it was a real 
problem and frankly it was a black eye for the Park Service. 



54 


Do you know anything about this process? 

Mr. Knox. Senator, I don’t. I do know something about the con- 
cession process, but I don’t know specifics on Acadia. 

Senator King. I do not expect you to speak specifically, but I am 
talking about the concession process and how the applicants are 
judged. 

Mr. Knox. Yes, it should be based on their financial capability, 
their quality of their — experience providing quality operations and 
the proposal that they put back to the National Park Service in 
terms of franchise fee returned to the National Park Service. And 
other considerations depending on each prospectus has different 
issues. Sometimes it’s environmental concerns that they provide 
additional protection of the environment. So there’s a number of 
criteria that each operation is judged based on. 

Senator King. I just hope you will consider this issue because we 
had a specific discussion. As I recall it was in this room with your 
people, and they said well, no, past performance of the current in- 
cumbent is not a factor in the scoring. I hope you would correct 
that. I will be following up. Actually you will be getting a letter 
from me, or your office will, very shortly. 

The second question is about revenues and fees. I proudly carry 
my senior pass which gets me into any National Park in the coun- 
try for the rest of my life. It can be purchased at the age of 62 , 
and the total cost for a lifetime pass to every National Park is $10. 
Now I am all for discounts for seniors and I like getting this for 
$10, but it strikes me that that is not fair to the taxpayers of the 
country who have to make up the difference. I do not know wheth- 
er it should be $40 or $50 or some other number, but $10 struck 
me as a very low fee for a lifetime pass for somebody that hopes 
to live another 30 years and really loves going to the National 
Parks. I just commend that to you for your consideration. 

Another issue along those lines that we have observed in Maine 
is where and how the fees are collected. I think that is worth a re- 
view because my sense is we are leaving a lot of money on the 
table, particularly in parks that have multiple entrances. We ought 
to be in a place where you can pay online, where you have an app 
that you can wave it as you go in that would expedite the lines. 
It would be more sure of getting the accurate payment and those 
kinds of things. 

I talked to Secretary Jewell about this. When you go to the app 
store for National Parks, you get either a commercial app or Aus- 
tralia National Parks. I think we ought to have a good app that 
you could use around the country, put a credit card number on it. 
It would pay your fee wherever you went, and we would again be 
collecting more revenues that would offset the shortfall for mainte- 
nance and other purposes. 

So those are two suggestions. It may not be apparent, but I am 
a huge supporter of the National Parks. I think it is one of the 
great, you know, Ken Burns said America’s best idea, wonderful 
idea. My wife and I were at Yosemite a few months ago, so I want 
to do all I can to help you. But I think that there has to be a real- 
ization that the budget situation here is not likely to improve any- 
time soon, and therefore, you have to be thinking of creative ways 
to generate your own revenues without making it prohibitive and 



55 


without making it so people cannot enjoy the parks but to be sure 
that people who want to and are willing to pay have a way to do 
so. 

So, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Cassidy. Thank you. Senator King. 

I will ask my questions now. 

Mr. Knox, Senate bills S. 521, S. 610, and S. 1483 authorize the 
National Park Service to conduct special resource studies, one pur- 
pose to determine the suitability, feasibility of designating study 
areas as a unit of the National Park Service. Part of that analysis 
is whether the park can be managed at a reasonable cost. 

Can you tell us what goes into making the determination to rec- 
ommend a new park? For example, do you consider cost of man- 
aging the units you already have in the system, existing mainte- 
nance backlog and if you divert more resources to a new park can 
you maintain current responsibilities? 

Mr. Knox. Yes, Senator, you’re speaking about the feasibility cri- 
teria, one of four criteria for studying a new unit. 

Senator Cassidy. Correct. 

Mr. Knox. What we generally look at there is — are the resources 
within, that are within that proposed area? Are they co-located 
where they could be reasonably managed operationally? What 
would be the cost if there’s land acquisition involved, what would 
be the cost of acquiring land for that new unit? We look at 

Senator Cassidy. Is there a metric involved? What is considered 
a reasonable cost? 

Mr. Knox. We basically compare the proposed unit to similar 
units that are within the National Park System and 

Senator Cassidy. Now this presupposes that you will be getting 
more money every year because presumably your budget is for the 
parks you currently manage. So it presupposes some increase un- 
less you can co-locate, it is so co-located, that you are at marginal 
cost or minimal. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. Knox. That is correct. 

Senator Cassidy. Has your budget been increasing? I say this be- 
cause I am all for expanding our Park Service, but we have to live 
within our means, as Senator King pointed out. So in your calcula- 
tions do you say, okay, it is a reasonable cost plus we expect our 
budget to grow, but if our budget does not grow despite being a 
reasonable cost, it does not happen? 

Mr. Knox. Well we see our job as recommending whether it’s an 
appropriate unit for the National Park System based on the histor- 
ical and natural resource significance of those resources that are 
within the unit. It wouldn’t be extraordinarily expensive as com- 
pared to existing units or difficult to manage compared to existing 
units of the National Park System. Is there someone else that could 
do or is already doing or 

Senator Cassidy. Yes, I get that. 

Mr. Knox. Or could do a good job? 

Senator Cassidy. But you have to project your budget for the 
coming year. When you project your budget for the coming year 
what if you know your budget is going to be tight, again as Senator 
King pointed out. The budgets will be tight. Would something 



56 


which would otherwise be recommended to be considered a national 
park not be recommended because of the overall budget process? I 
am just curious. 

Mr. Knox. Well, we make the recommendation based on is it an 
appropriate unit of the National Park System and Congress gets to 
make the decision on designation. 

Senator Cassidy. I see. 

So, I guess what I am trying to get, as an authorizer and appro- 
priator, if there is a portfolio you have. You can expand that port- 
folio ad infinitum if there is infinite resources. But, are you prohib- 
ited from viewing what our resources or you say, this would be ap- 
propriate. Would we have resources? I do not quite understand this 
process. 

Mr. Knox. We look at the decision on appropriate levels of fund- 
ing for the National Park Service. That’s Congress’ decision. 

Senator Cassidy. I guess 

Mr. Knox. And so I guess and also the decision whether to add 
units to the National Park System. 

Senator Cassidy. But are you agnostic as to what Congress will 
do and you just make the decision and if Congress wants to appro- 
priate the money they do? But you may recommend to make it a 
park, but Congress does not appropriate the extra money. What 
happens then? Do you still make it a park or do you follow what 
I am saying or do you say no. Congress did not give us the money 
so we cannot designate it a park this time around? 

Mr. Knox. Well the Congress makes the designation. And if 
there’s no funding, if there’s no appropriation for that unit, we 
manage it on a shoestring until there are appropriations, generally. 

Senator Cassidy. Gotcha. How often does a study come back that 
does not recommend a study area become a unit of the Park sys- 
tem? 

Mr. Knox. We have a number of studies where we’ve rec- 
ommended that the unit not be included or the property not be in- 
cluded. 

Senator Cassidy. Do you have a sense of that percent of studies? 

Mr. Knox. No. I can get you that number. 

Senator Cassidy. That would be great. 

Senator Cassidy. Let’s go to the Grand Canyon Bison bill. I am 
not from the Grand Canyon states, but I understand why they are 
frustrated. Here you have a herd of bison trampling the current en- 
vironment. They have become an invasive, damaging species, but 
the environmental impact study takes so long. Yet I think you 
mentioned that you can see it probably needs some work. It just 
seems like it is taking so long. Why does it take so long to deter- 
mine that an environmental invasive species is harmful to the en- 
vironment? Do you follow what I am saying? That is kind of what 
gives government a bad name. The obvious solution or an obvious 
conclusion takes a long time to be arrived at. 

Mr. Knox. Well the environmental impact statement will look at 
alternative solutions, you know, to the problem. And we want to 
get the right science to bear on that decision with the right solu- 
tion. 



57 


Senator Cassidy. So there may be a solution aside from culling. 
It would just be to herd them out or would there be some other so- 
lution besides culling? 

Again, I do not know the issue so I am asking. Is there another 
solution envisioned besides decreasing the size of the herd by cull- 
ing? 

Mr. Knox. I’m not aware of what the other alternatives are so 
I can’t tell you that specifically. And those, obviously, are still 
being developed. 

Senator Cassidy. Okay. 

Senator Heinrich, second round? 

Senator Heinrich. You bet. 

First off, let me say. Senator Klobuchar has submitted a state- 
ment in support of S. 403, her North Country National Scenic Trail 
bill, which I ask unanimous consent to be included in the record. 

Senator Cardin has also submitted several letters in support of 
S. 521, the study of the President Street Station, and S. Mo, the 
study of Thurgood Marshall Elementary School. I would ask that 
these be included in the record by unanimous consent. 

Senator Cassidy. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 



58 


U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar 
Written Testimony 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
Subcommittee on National Parks Legislative Hearing 
Testimony in Support of S. 403, the North Country National Scenic Trail Route 

Adjustment Act 
June 10, 2015 

Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member Heinrich, and members of the National Parks 
Subcommittee, thank you for holding this important hearing to examine legislation related to 
components of our National Parks system. This year marks the 50* anniversary of President 
Johnson’s speech prioritizing the creation of a national system of trails. 

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss a bill that I have introduced, the North Country National 
Scenic Trail Route Adjustment Act (S. 403). The bill is cosponsored by my colleagues Senators 
Stabenow, Sanders, Franken, and Hoeven, who are members of the Committee, as well as 
Senators Leahy, Brown, Gillibrand, Franken, Baldwin, and Peters. The House version of the bill 
was introduced by Representative Rick Nolan (MN) and has 1 5 bipartisan cosponsors. 

The bill makes two important modifications to the North Country National Scenic Trail. First, 
the authorized route in the northeastern comer of my home state of Minnesota would be revised 
to avoid unnavigable wetlands and incorporate existing scenic hiking trails along Lake 
Superior’s north shore and through the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Secondly, the 
bill would connect the North Country National Scenic Trail with the popular Appalachian 
National Scenic Trail by extending the trail from its current eastern terminus at Crown Point, 
New York, to the state of Vermont, These updates will enhance the trail while boosting tourism 
that benefits local businesses and helping people to more fully share in our nation’s natural 
beauty. 

The longest trail in the national scenic trail system, the North Country National Scenic Trail 
passes through seven states and features numerous outdoor recreational opportunities of scenic, 
historic, and national importance along its route. The trail boasts a diversity of landscapes 
including the Adirondack Mountains of New York, the rolling countryside of Pennsylvania and 
Ohio, the shores of the Great Lakes in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, and the plains of 
North Dakota. 

The bill uses existing trail infrastmeture whenever possible for the extension and expansion of 
the North Country National Scenic Trail, Nearly 400 miles of the Superior Hiking Trail, the 
Border Route Trail, the Kekekabic Trail, and the Long Trail would be incorporated, covering 
approximately 70 percent of the proposed re-route in the legislation. This allows the trail to avoid 
wetland areas that are difficult to build and maintain hiking trails on while saving money and 
minimizing impacts to sensitive environmental lands. 

The National Park Service supports enacting ray bill. Associate Director of Park Planning, 
Facilities, and Lands at the National Park Service, Victor Knox, will testify today that the 
National Park Service has approved both the plans and the environmental assessments for 



59 


changes to the trail included in the bill. He will also note that the cost of constructing and 
maintaining the re-route and the extension would be manageable due to longstanding public- 
private partnerships with the North Country Trail Association and other volunteers that have put 
considerable “sweat equity” into developing and maintaining the trail. 

Finally, by extending the route of the trail and connecting it to the Appalachian National Scenic 
Trail, ambitious hikers will be able to journey from the plains of North Dakota across the Great 
Lakes region to Vermont and then head south all the way to Georgia. It’s easy to see the 
important link that my legislation provides to reach the goal of the connected system of national 
trails envisioned by Congress and President Johnson 50 years ago. 

I believe that the re-route and extension of the North Country National Scenic Trail is good for 
tourism, good for the environment, and good for the National Park system. Thank you again for 
the opportunity to testify in support of the North Country National Scenic Trail Route 
Adjustment Act. It is my hope that you can support this bipartisan effort. Thank you. 



60 


President Street Station Study Act and Justice Thurgood Marshall’s Elementary School 

Study Act 

Statement for the Hearing Record: Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) 

National Parks Subcommittee of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

114*'' Congress 


Thank you Chairman Cassidy and Ranking Member Heinrich, and members of the National 
Parks Subcommittee for holding today’s hearing. I greatly appreciate the inclusion of two bills 
that I have introduced with Senator Mikulski that will authorize the study of two historically and 
culturally significant structural resource in Baltimore City, S,521, the President Street Station 
Study Act, and S. 610, Thurgood Marshall’s Elementary School Study Act both aim to evaluate 
whether these important places in Baltimore City should be incorporated into the National Park 
System. 

Our nation recently honored the sesquicentennial of the Civil War. There are many landmarks 
in my hometown of Baltimore that are significant to Civil War history, which I believe are in the 
Nation’s interests to protect for future generations. As our nation pays tribute to this trying time 
in our nation’s history, the President Street Station Study Act would initiate the process for 
preserving one such landmark in the heart of Baltimore. President Street Station played a crucial 
role in the Civil War, the Underground Railroad, the growth of Baltimore’s railroad industry, and 
is a historically significant landmark to the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. 

The station was constructed for the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore (PW&B) 
Railroad in 1 849 and remains the oldest surviving big city railroad terminal in the United States. 
This historical structure is a unique architectural gem, arguably the first example and last 
survivor of the early barrel-vault train shed arches, also known as the Howe Truss. The arch-rib 
design became the blueprint for railroad bridges and roofs well into the 20*'' century and was 
replicated for every similarly designed train shed and roof for the next 20 years. 

The growth of President Street Station and the PW&B railroad mirror the expansion of the 
railroad industry throughout the country in the latter half of the 19"’ century. This station played 
an essential role in making Baltimore the first railroad and sea-rail link in the nation and helped 
the city become the international port hub it is today. 

In its heyday, President Street Station was the key link connecting Washington D.C. with the 
northeast states. Hundreds of passengers traveling north passed through this station and, by the 
start of the Civil War, Baltimore had become our nation’s major southern railroad hub. Not 
surprisingly, the station played a critical role in both the Civil War and the Underground 
Railroad. 

Perhaps the most famous passenger to travel through the station was President Abraham 
Lincoln. He came through the station at least four times, including secretly on his way to his first 
inauguration in 1861. President-elect Lincoln was warned by a PW&B private detective of a 


1 



61 


possible assassination plot in Baltimore as he transferred trains. While it is unclear if this plot 
existed and posed a serious threat, Lincoln nevertheless was secretly smuggled aboard a train in 
the dead of night to complete his trip to Washington. 

Just a few months later. President Street Station served as a backdrop for what many 
historians consider to be the first bloodshed of the Civil War. The Baltimore Riot of 1861 
occurred when Lincoln called for Union volunteers to quell the rebellion at Fort Sumter in 
Charleston. On this day in history, April 19, 1861, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania volunteers 
were met and attacked by a mob of secessionist and Confederate sympathizers. The bloody 
confrontation left four dead and thirty-six wounded. As the war continued, the Station remained 
a critical link for the Union. Troops and supplies from the north were regularly shuttled through 
the station to support Union soldiers. 

It is well known that Maryland was a common starting point along the Underground Railroad 
and that many escaped slaves from Maryland’s Eastern Shore plantations were destined for 
Baltimore and the Presidents Street Station to travel north to freedom. Last year, Congress acted 
to honor Maryland’s own Harriet Tubman, the Underground Railroad’s most famous 
“conductor” by enacting the Harriet Tubman National Historical Parks Act, establishing the first 
set of National Historical Parks to commemorate the life of an African American Woman. While 
Harriet Tubman personally led dozens of people to freedom, her courage and fortitude also 
inspired others to find their own strength to seek freedom. President Street Station was indeed a 
station on this secret network. Prior to emancipation in 1863, several renowned escapees, 
including Frederick Douglass, William and Ellen Craft, and Henry “Box” Brown, traveled 
through tlie Station, risking their lives for a better and freer life. 

Others’ journeys for a better life also passed through President Street Station. From its 
beginning and into the 20*'' century, Baltimore was both a destination and departure point for 
immigrants. New arrivals from Ireland, Russia, and Europe arriving on the eastern seaboard 
traveled by way of the PW&B railroads to the west. 

For decades, President Street Station has long been recognized as having an important place 
in history: In 1992, it was listed on the National Register of Historic places and the city of 
Baltimore has dedicated it a local historical landmark. For many years it served as the Baltimore 
Civil War Museum, educating generations of people about the role Maryland and Baltimore 
played in the Civil War and the early history of the city. In recent years, the museum, run by 
dedicated volunteers from the Maryland Historical Society and Friends of President Street 
Station, have struggled to keep the station’s doors open and keeping the station’s character true 
to its historical roots. The area around Presidents Street Station has changed dramatically over 
the decades, but the Station has worked to preserve its place in place in history. It has been many 
years since trains passed through the Presidents Street Station and it is clear that today the best 
use for this building is to preserve the building and use it tell Station’s American story. 

President Street Station is an American historical treasure. This bill authorizes the Secretary’ 
of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of President Street Station to evaluate the 
suitability and feasibility of establishing the Station as a unit of the National Park Service. 
President Street Station, a contributor to the growth of the railroad, and a vital player in the 


2 



62 


Underground Railroad, Lincoln Presidency and Civil War, is part of this history. 1 urge my 
colleagues to join me in giving this station the recognition it deserves and support this bill. 

I would also like to discuss the Justice Thurgood Marshall’s Elementary School Study Act. 
The elementary school that Justice Marshall attended, known as PS 103, located in ray 
hometown of Baltimore, is a place of national significance because it marks the site where one of 
our nation’s greatest legal minds began his education. 

Thurgood Marshall is well known as one of the most significant historical figures of the 
American civil rights movement. By the time he was thirty-two, he was appointed the chief legal 
counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). He 
served at the NAACP a total of twenty-five years and was a key strategist to end racial 
segregation throughout the United States. 

Perhaps the greatest illustration of this effort was his victory before the Supreme Court 
overturning the Plessy doctrine effectively ending school segregation with the landmark decision 
in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS in 1 954. Not only did thi s case open up 
educational opportunity and sparked the civil rights movement in this nation, it also marked the 
beginning of Thurgood Marshall’s career, still a young attorney from Baltimore, as one of the 
greatest legal minds in all the land. This case was just one of the 29 cases he won before the U.S. 
Supreme Court. 

Fittingly, Marshall was the first African American confirmed to the Supreme Court. He was 
nominated by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1967 and served 24 years, until 1991, On the high 
court, Marshall continued his fight for the Constitutional protection of individual human rights. 

But Thurgood Marshall was not always a legal giant. He was once a young boy growing up in 
West Baltimore. He received the first six years of his public education at PS 103. An apocryphal 
story goes that a young Thurgood Marshall studied the U.S. Constitution in the basement of the 
building while serving detention. Regardless of whether or not this is true, the building 
powerfully tells the story of racial segregation in America, PS 103 was a “blacks only” school 
when Justice Marshall was a student, and marks the academic beginning of one of the country’s 
most brilliant legal thinkers and a pioneer of the civil rights movement. 

The building is located at 1315 Division Street in the Upton Neighborhood of Old West 
Baltimore. The building is part of the Old West Baltimore National Register Historic District, 
and is listed as a contributing historic resource for the neighborhood. The Old West Baltimore 
historic district is one of the largest predominately African American historic districts in the 
country, and its significance is centered on the African American experience in the area. 

In Baltimore, we are fortunate to have the National Park Service operate two historical sites. 
Fort McHenry and the Hampton Mansion. Adding PS 103 is a unique opportunity for the 
National Park Service to work in Baltimore’s inner-city and to reach out and engage people 
about African American history. 


3 



63 


Needless to say, Thurgood Marshall’s legacy is one that should be preserved. He was one of 
our country’s greatest legal minds and a prominent historical figure of one chapter of our 
country’s great history - the civil rights movement. This bill authorizes the Secretary of the 
Interior to conduct a special resource study of PS 103 to evaluate the suitability and feasibility of 
establishing the building as a unit of the National Park Service. Preserving the building that was 
Justice Marshall’s elementary school will give Americans insight into Justice Marshall’s 
childhood. 

I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity and look forward to working with the committee 
to advance these bills through the committee’s process. 

-###- 


4 



64 



L!V£ THE IE S AG¥ 


ABRAHAM LINCOLN 
BICENTENNIAL COMMISSION 

101 Independence Avenue, SE 
Washington, DC 205‘=W-4015 
(202) 707-6998 
(202) 707-6995 fax 
vwwv.nncoln200.gov 

Co-Chairs 
Hon. Richard Durbin 
Hon. Ray LaHood 
Harold Hoizer 

Executive Director 
Eileen R. Mackevich 

Members 

Dr. Jean T.D. Bandler 
Dr. Darrel E. Bigham 
Dr. Gabor Boritt 
Hon. Jim Sunning 
Julie Cellini 
Joan L. Flinspach 
Dr. James Oliver Horton 
Hon. Jesse L Jackson Jr. 

Lura Lynn Ryan 
Louise Taper 
Hon. Tommy Turner 
Hon. Frank J, Williams 

Lincoln cabinet Co-Chairs 

Hon. Jack Kemp 

Hon. William H, Gray III 

Ex-Officio 

Dr. James H. Billington 

"...a new birth of freedom... " 


April 23, 2008 

Honorable Sheila Dixon 
Mayor of Baltimore 
City Hall, Room 250 
100 North Holliday Street 
Baltimore, MD 21202 

Dear Mayor Dixon: 

Everyone knows Abraham Lincoln. He rose from 
poverty to the pinnacle of political power. He led the 
country through its worst crisis, and yet he was not 
satisfied just to preserve the Union. He wanted to forge 
“a more perfect Union.” 

In February 2009, the United States will celebrate the 
200th birthday of President Abraham Lincoln. He will 
be honored with speeches and wreath layings, concerts 
and dramatic presentations, educational programs and 
international conferences. I write today to urge you to 
honor President Lincoln’s Bicentennial by preserving 
the President Street Station. 

In early 1861, the United States teetered on the brink of 
Civil War. As president-elect Lincoln made his way by 
rail from Springfield to Washington, word came that 
assassins in Baltimore would make an attempt on his 
life. At the insistence of several advisors, Lincoln by- 
passed Baltimore, and the President Street Station, in 
what has become a famous incident in early presidential 
security. He returned to the station on at least three 
other occasions during his presidency. 

In addition, the station has been documented as a major 
stop on the Underground Railroad. Frederick Douglass 
himself passed through the station on his way to 
freedom. 

Conversion of this historic site into a commercial venue, 
as has been reported is under consideration, would 
demean its historic value. Instead, 1 urge you to move in 
the opposite direction and seek National Historic 
Landmark status for the site. Doing so would ensure its 
rich historical heritage and preserve a place important to 
the Lincoln story. 


65 


Congress established the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission to plan educational, 
civic, and cultural programs to mark the 16th president’s 200th birthday in 2009. The 
Commission actively promotes a greater appreciation of Lincoln’s legacy, including 
heritage tourism to places associated with his life. I appreciate the opportunity to present 
our concerns. I look forward to hearing from you as you move forward to a decision on 
the status of the President Street Station. 


Sincerely, 



Eileen R. Mackevich 
Executive Director 



66 


BALTMORE^HERTIAGE 

WORKING TOGITHERTO PRESERVE AND PLAN BALTIMORE'S FUTURE 

ll’T WEST CHASE STREET, BALTIMORE, MD 21201 • 4t0.S32.9992 • baUimoveheritage.org 


I El-oe A. Bmicr, E.q. J^ne 2,2015 

; l^sideril 


Jean Rambo Hankoy 
l %t Vice I^&idiciU 

Profcssor johii R. Rreihan 
2nd Vice Pirsidmt 

I Douglas R. Gorins 
1 Treafurer 


The Eionorable Benjamin L. Cardin 
509 liart Senate Office Building 
Washington, DC 20510 


Stoplien Satjler 
Reconlivg ^ncrelarj 


Re; Support for Baltimore’s President Street Station Study Act 


j Tori Simms 
j Membmhip Seentai-y 

I Kathci inc .4. Fleam 
Pa-ii PiTsidmi 

Witi Backstrom 
Ralpii Bi’owi-i, MD 
Rebecca (.IFian 


Dear Senator Cardin: 

I am pleased to write in support of the legislation authorizing the Secretary ot 
the Department of Interior to conduct a special resource study of Baltimore’s 
President Street Station. 


AndrcKj. Collotia 
MiilLhew Compton. AJ.A 
Eii^beih Doyle 
Dominick Dunnigan 
Arlene B. Fisher 
David A Giiclsby 
[trista 1). Creea 
Lesley I-Iunip.Iireys 
Senator Verna jone.'j-Rodwell 
.Senator {niian L Lapldcs 
WliiaiiiLee, LCSW 
John Maclay 
Malcolm William Mason 
Kristen Mitchell 
Kenneth Morgan 
Mura Murdocii, AlA 
Bi!! Peiicek 

Waytic R. Schaumhorg 
Don Scott 

Romaine .Stec Somerville 
James Suttner, AJA 
Susan W. Talbott 
Mark Thi,steJ 


President Street station is of national importance as the site of the first 
bloodshed of the Civil War, as a vital part of the rail network that allowed the 
Union to win the Civil War, and as one of the oldest surviving train stations 
in any American city. It is currently a museum with many visitors but also 
widi many challenges to sustain itself. Designation as a national historic 
landmark would give the station prominence that it deserves and a boost so 
that it can continue to tell the important stories in American History that it 
was at the heart of. 



Executive Director 


Betty Bland Thomas 
l)degai« Mary Washington, Ph.D. 
Barbara K. Weeks 


Johns W. Hopkins 
i Exuaitiw Dhucior 



67 



BALTIMORE NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA 

BaltimoreHefitageAreaAssociation, Inc. 
1 (X) light Street, 1 2th Floor 
Baltimore, MD 21 202 
Tel 410-878-6411 


June 3, 2015 


The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin 
509 Hart Senate Office Building 
Washington, DC 20510 


Dear Senator Cardin: 

On behalf of the Baltimore National Heritage Area, 1 want to express our strong support of the 
President Street Station Study Act This historic structure Is associated with significant events and 
themes of U.S. history, most notably the incredible journeys to freedom along the Underground 
Railroad and the first bloodshed of the Civil War. The structure deserves the recognition and 
protection afforded by hopeful designation as a National Historic Landmark. 

The remaining portion of the station Is the oldest surviving downtown passenger station in the 
United States. Built in 1851, the station was also the first to be constructed with the Howe trust arch 
system. Patented in 1841 by William Howe, it became the premier method for constructing train 
sheds and bridges for many years. The station is listed on the National Register of Historic Places 
and is a documented site on the National Park Service’s Underground Network to Freedom. Several 
enslaved people escaped on the station’s train line — most famously, Frederick Douglass. 

On April 19, 1861 the first casualties of the Civil War took place as the Sixdi Massachusetts Regiment 
walked along what is Pratt Street today, from President Street Station to Camden Station. A mob 
began throwing rocks at the soldiers and the resulting fight caused the first deaths of the Civil War. 
Today President Street Station is home to the Baltimore Civil War Museum. 

We stand in strong support of initiating the process to recognize President Street Station as a 
National Historic Landmark. Please fee! free to contact the heritage area if you have any questions. 


Sincerely, 



Executive Director 




68 


Frederick Douglass 

FAMILY FOUNDATION 


March 3, 2009 


Mayor Sheila Dixon 

City Hall 

100 N, Holiday Street 
Baltimore, MD 21201 


Dear Mayor Dixon: 

I am writing in support of the preservation of the President Street Station site. 

As direct descendants of both Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington, my family 
lives our nation’s history every day. The challenge of our foundation is both to preseive the 
past and to help others understand the dynamic role that history plays in each of our lives. 

We are, all of us, the sum of those who came before. Whether they were defined as farmers 
or bookkeepers, soldiers or mothers, they formed the steps upon which we stand. They and 
tlie circumstances of their lives cannot be simply swept away unless we propose to 
extinguish ourselves in the process. To ignore the past is certainly a folly, to destroy it is a 
tragedy. 

Your Honor please let us know how we may be of service in further defending the 
preservation of this monument for the sake of future generations. 


With the warmest regards, 



Nettie Washington Douglass 
Chairwoman 

Frederick Douglass Family Foundation 


Great great granddaughter, Frederick Douglass 
Great granddaughter, Booker T. Washington 


107 E. Charleston Blvd., Suite 101, Las Vegas, NV 89104 
www.fi^.org 



69 



mm 

Vim 








f the President Street S 
60 1 President Street 
tirnore Maryland 21202 
443-220-0290 


icS Sirttiori Sik- tircd 184V has hccn a llistufic l.diiiini.:')- . ■ : 

j Njvhw & {■(HDpiinv Fubhshcd a Hnd .l-.-.c Vic . i4 HjV 
g the 1 uifgi; Aerial View wcit smaller I'urlraiK ol ! aii-.iin.;'- t'...,.;,::' ; 

One ine buiiJiiigs fcaUircd was the PrcsiJci't Sirect Slai oi! \ •: ,.i ■ 
jei Suiiurn ha.% ;sKsa> s been a landmark '! he I thrarv <4 (.'ongre^s 
M '•:isi ;!' 8-1 crttaii Huilding Siinxy & tliAI R) Hisiorst 

sriDi; Pcenrd In dotiimcni Irrsl <>r-ils kihd f‘r<Jtb%):t R<iftra&';|5|p^l 
k the Hnsse Arch 1 riiss System, Ift 19^2 the Stjfwi iisicd on !hc 
• 'I '.'(iv, I'ljces I' was pan ol'the IVV3 Congrcssinna! Sl'iJs i>n U 


Innd 1 1 c Sla'inf' aj> entered on the (JnderRfOund Kailroad sjciwnik to 
I he Sr.V.ii'ii .li I'e^ame part of the hirst Walking lad Segment (1861 
ad) lor the M.irsl.ind Civil War I rads Network It was an important 
:ePl 'mnwersarv ol'lhe Civil W'ai and the Lincoln Hicentcnnial ot 
I he Uad.liiig < in important asset ol the Ballimorc National Heritage ,/ 
It I'liMii. daiiv in the Inner Harbor ln20IOlhcCit> ol'Haltimote 
;d 'he Hii 'ding J' a* lO, I anilmert Vvelhetriend .n i it .J^rt 
ngis iirgt ( 'onisiess !'• 8il im a MI'S Studs in deli I'oinv a ''.'l.i"i' i 




70 


l^ry Ho^, Governor Oav?d R. Crasg. Secretary 

Boyd K. Ri^ierfCKd. Lt. Governor Wendr W. Peters Deputy Seaelary 


Maryland Department of Planning 
Maryland Historical Trust 



June 10, 2015 


The Honorable Benjamin L. Caniin 
509 Hart Senate Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20510 

RE; Support for passage of the President Street Station Study Act - S.521 
Dear Senator Cardin: 

1 am writing on behalf of the Maryland Historical Trust to express support for passage of 
the President Street Station Study Act. The Act, which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 
conduct a Special Resource Study to evaluate the suitability and feasibility of establishing the 
President Street Station as a unit of the National Park Service, recognizes the national 
importance of this Maryland resource. 

Originally built for the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore Railroad in 1849 -1850, 
the President Street Station was the first in the nation to be built in the traditional station form. 
The station played an Important role in the escape of enslaved people to freedom in the north, 
including Frederick Douglass who is believed to have boarded a train here that transported him 
to Philadelphia and freedom. During the Civil War, the station is associated with at least two 
notable events. The first of these is the foiled plot to assassinate President-elect Abraham 
Lincoln as he traveled by train through President Street Station on his way to Washington for his 
swearing-in. The second is the infamous “Pratt Street Riot” when Union troops were attacked by 
mobs of Confederate sympathizers as they tried to transfer across the city from the President 
Street Station to Camden Station on their way to Washington. The riot resulted in the first 
casualty list of the war with three soldiers killed and twenty-four wounded, and eight rioters 
killed and an unknown number wounded. 

The Civil War and Underground Railroad history of the President Street Station is 
directly tied to the stories being presented at the two existing National Park Service-operated 
sites in Baltimore - Fort McHenry and Hampton Mansion. The Pratt Street Riot led directly to 
the Union garrisoning of Baltimore in the Civil War and the use of Fort McHenry as a prison for 
Confederate sympathizers. The Maryland Stale Archives Legacy of Slavery project has 
documented numerous runaway slaves from Hampton Mansion, some of which likely escaped 
north through President Street Station as Frederick Dougiass had done. The President Street 


1(X)Commuraly Place - CrownsviHe - Marysancl - 21032 
* To«Fres; 1-800.756.Q119 - TIY users: MafySand Relay - MHIMaryland-gov 


Tel- 410,514.7600 



71 


Station, located within walking distance of the |K)pular Inner Harbor, would allow the National 
Park Service to further engage people in these and other interwoven stories. 

Thank you for your leadership in the effort to recognize President Street Station for its 
association with the Civil War and the Underground Railroad and as one of the oldest surviving 
urban railroad terminals in the United States is greatly appreciated. We strongly support your 
efforts to pass this legislation that will allow the President Street Station to be considered for 
inclusion in the National Park System. 

Sincerely, 



Stale Historic Preservation Officer 



72 


Lany f-fegan. Governor David R, Craig, Seaetary 

Bo^ K. RiMhwIord, Lt. Governs Wsndi W. Peters Deputy Secretary 


Maryland Department of Planning 
Maryland Historical Trust 



June 10, 2015 


The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin 
509 Hart Senate Office Building 
Washington, D.C, 20510 

RE: Support for passage ofThurgood Marshall’s Elementary School Study Act~S.610 
Dear Senator Cardin: 

I am writing on behalf of the Maryland Historical Trust to express support for Thurgood 
Marshall’s Elementary School Study Act. The Act, which authorizes the Secretary of the 
Interior to conduct a Special Resource Study to evaluate the suitability and feasibility of 
establishing Thurgood Marshall’s elementary school (P.S. 103) as a unit of the National Park 
Service, recognizes the importance of this Maryland resource. 

As you know, P.S. 1 03 is the historic site where the young Thurgood Marshall attended 
elementary school from the first through sixth grade, 'fhe school retains a high degree of historic 
integrity and is a designated contributing historic resource of national and local significance 
within the Old West Baltimore National Register Historic District. In this place Thurgood 
Marshall first experienced many of the influences that helped shape his later life. 

Baltimore has played and, as recent events illustrate, continues to play a nationally 
significant role in the nation’s unfinished work to ensure civil rights, opportunity, and justice for 
all Americans. Authorization of a Special Resource Study of P.S. 103 would provide an 
opportunity for the National Park Service to work in inner-city Baltimore, engage with the 
community there and beyond, and to preserve and use this tangible link to a central figure in our 
country’s civil rights struggle. Thank you for your leadership on this important legislation. 


Sincerely, 



State Historic Preservation Officer 


100 Community Place - CfownswJle • Maryland ■ 21032 
Tei: 410-514.76(X) - ToilFree. 1.S00-756.O119 - TTY users: Mar>^nd Relay - MHTMaryiandgov 



73 


June 2, 2015 


The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin 
509 Hart Senate Office Building 
Washington, DC 20510 


Rc: Support for the study of President Street Station in Baltimore, 
Maryland, to establish its suitability as a unit of the National Park Service 

Dear Senator Cardin; 

I am writing to support the ongoing effort to designate President Street Station here in Baltimore 
as a unit of the National Park Service. 

The President Street Station served as an integral rail transportation link during the Civil War, 
and is recognized today as the oldest surviving big-city railroad terminal in the United States; 
The station’s preservation would solidify both its important place in historj' and its historical 
landmark status. For many years. President Street Station also housed the Baltimore Civil War 
Museum— yet the museum has struggled to remain open in recent years. Although the area 
arotind President Street Station has changed dramatically throughout the past decades, the 
Station has consistently fought to maintain its place in history. 

The bill (President Street Study Act) would initiate the process for recognizing President Street 
Station’s landmark historical status, officially establishing it as a contributor to the growth of the 
railroad, in addition to a vital part of the Underground Railroad, Lincoln Presidency, and Civil 
War.: 

The Maryhmd Historical Society greatly appreciates all of your efforts to preserve Maryland and 
the nation’s history. , 



THE MUSEUM. »LffiRARY:#MARYtAND HISTORY 

201 West Moniitaent Street « Baltimqfe,,MD 2J2Oi'i46-74:-«:,C4lO)--685-3750-s-.(4l0) 385-2105 FAX * www.mdk:org~ 



74 



June 2, 2015 


The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin 
509 Hart Senate Office Building 
Washington, DC 20510 


Re: Support for the study of F.S. 103 School in Baltimore, Maryland, to 
establish its suitability as a unit of the National Park Service 

Dear Senator Cardin; 

I am writing to support the ongoing effort to designate P.S. 103 School here in Baltimore as a 
unit of the National Park Service. 

Perhaps best known for the victory in Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark Supreme 
Court decision that desegregated public schools, Thurgood Marshall was the Court’s first 
African-American Justice — ^primarily recognized for his jurisprudence in the fields of civil rights. 
Bom in Baltimore, Marshall attended Frederick Douglass High School before pursuing law at 
Howard University. After graduating first in his class, he began his 25 year affiliation with the 
f^ational Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and went on to argue 
many civil rights cases before the Supreme Court. When President Lyndon Johnson appointed 
Marshallto be the United States Solicitor General, he became the First African American to hold 
the office. Thurgood Marshall’s legacy has had an impact on not only U.S, government, but also 
American society: his fight for equality and determination to end institutional racism has 
established him as both a pillar of civil rights and an American hero. 

The Thurgood Marshall’s Elementary School Study Act would authorize a Special Resource 
Study on the PS 103, the Elementary school that Thurgood Marshal attended in the Upton 
neighborhood of West Baltimore. 

The Maryland Historical Society thanks you for all you are doing to preserve Maryland and the 
nation’s history. 



s THE MUSEUM fif tJBSMy ^HAK¥LAND HISTORY c 

201 West Monument Street • Baltimore, Mp 21201-4674* (410),685-*375O*(4lO) 385-2105 FAX* ivww,mdhs.org 


75 



National Parks Conservation Association" 

Protecting Our National Parks for Future Generations^ 


National Headquarters 


Robert E. Reyes 

P.O. Box 533 

Riviera Beach, MD 21123 

April 15, 2009 

Dear Robert, 

On behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) and our 340,000 
members, I’m writing to express our support for the preservation of President Street Station. As 
you well know, the city of Baltimore has a rich history. The Underground Railroad, the informal 
means by which individuals liberated themselves from human bondage, was highly active 
throughout the city, with President Street Station serving as a focal point for freedom seekers, 
their allies, and their opponents. 

In the decade preceding the start of the Civil War, a virtual who’s who Underground 
Railroad legends made or attempted to make their way from slavery to freedom via President 
Street Station. Frederick Douglass, William and Ellen Craft, and Henry “Box” Brown, passed 
through on their way north. The role of President Street Station in these escapes has been well- 
documented by historians and duly validated. To that end. President Street Station was granted 
membership in the Park Service’s National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom program 
(NTF), the only program with a mandate from Congress to increase pubic understanding and 
appreciation of the history of people who escaped from slavery and those who helped them along 
the way. 

NPCA recognizes the significance of the President Street Station site and strongly 
support your efforts to prevent the area from being altered, degraded, or destroyed, by 
incompatible development. The preservation unimpaired of President Street Station is a victory 
for Baltimore, for American History, and the nation as a whole. And we stand ready to assist you 
in this important endeavor. 

Sipcerely, 



1300 19th Street NW . Suite 300 . Washington, DC 20036 
a 202.223.NPC4(6722) ■ Fax 202.659.0650 - npcaenpca.org • www.npca.org 



76 



June 8, 2015 


STEPHANIE RAWLINGS-BLAKE 

MAYOR 

100 Holliday Street, Room 250 
Baltimore, Maryland 21202 


The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin 
509 Hart Senate Office Building 
Washington, DC 20510 


Dear Senator Cardin: 


On behalf of the City of Baltimore, I want to express our strong support of the President Street Station Study Act. 
This historic structure is associated with significant events and themes of U.S. history, most notably the incredible 
journeys to freedom along the Underground Railroad and the first bloodshed of the Civil War. The structure 
deserves the recognition and protection afforded by hopeful designation as a National Historic Landmark. 

In partnership with the Friends of President Street Station and the Baltimore National Heritage Area, the city has 
been very successful in keeping the site’s doors open to the public as a small museum - the Baltimore Civil War 
Museum. Thousands of visitors enjoy this historic site each year. As a National Historic Landmark, the station 
will receive the recognition that it deserves, encouraging even more visitation and solidifying its protection as an 
historic asset for the city. 

The site’s history is nationally significant. The station is the oldest surviving downtown passenger station in the 
United States. Built in 1851, the station was also the first to be constructed with the Howe trust arch 
system. Patented in 1841 by William Howe, it became the premier method for constructing train sheds and bridges 
for many years. The station is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is a documented site on the 
National Paric Service’s Underground Network to Freedom. Several enslaved people escaped on the station’s train 
line — most famously, Frederick Douglass. 

On April 19, 1861 the first casualties of the Civil War took place as the Sixth Massachusetts Regiment walked 
along what is Pratt Street today, from President Street Station to Camden Station. A mob began throwing rocks at 
the soldiers and the resulting fight caused the first deaths of the Civil War. 

We stand in strong support of initiating the process to recognize President Street Station as a National Historic 
Landmark. Please feel free to contsuit my office if you have any questions. 



City of Baltimore 


phone: 410.396.3835 fax: 410,576.9425 email: mayor%baltimoiecity.gov 



77 


Senator Heinrich. Let’s followup a little bit on the Grand Can- 
yon bill. 

The Park Service, as you know, has allowed the use of skilled 
volunteers to reduce un^late populations, mostly elk and deer, 
and by deer I mean white-tailed deer, at a number of National 
Park System areas including at least a few National Parks. Are 
there changes to the bill’s requirement that the Park Service use 
skilled volunteers at Grand Canyon that you would suggest to 
make that use more consistent with what you have done in other 
places or are you just simply asking for more time? 

Mr. Knox. Our concern is that the bill is picking the alternative 
solution, you know, the right solution to this problem, and we’re in 
the middle of studying and trying to get the right science and pub- 
lic input to come up with what is the right solution to the problem. 
The bill goes to the solution before that study is completed. 

Senator Heinrich. So you do not expect any additional rounds of 
public input into the NEPA process. You think that, at this point, 
it is just a matter of coming up with a proposed action and fin- 
ishing out that process and then having something in early 2016, 
January, February, March? 

Mr. Knox. No, it’s my understanding the draft plan would be 
issued for public review in early 2016. So there would be an oppor- 
tunity for the public to weigh in at that point. The public review 
today 

Senator Heinrich. So you have done scoping but you have 
not 

Mr. Knox. Correct. 

Senator Heinrich. Okay. 

Well you can imagine that we kind of have a chicken and an egg 
problem here to some degree. I mean, I think one of the issues is 
frankly we do not fund the Park Service to do all the things that 
we ask the Park Service to do. I would suggest that the solution 
to that is probably not to say National Parks are a bad thing and 
we should quit making them but to begin to take our own respon- 
sibilities more seriously than we have b^efore and find a solution to 
the kind of budget caps that were imposed by the Budget Control 
Act. 

I want to ask you one last question with regard to — that was a 
commentary, that was not actually a question. So you are off the 
hook on that one. 

With respect to the headquarters for the Manhattan Project Na- 
tional Historical Park, would potential co-location of resources with 
other National Park Service units, for example, Bandelier National 
Monument, be taken into consideration if those could produce any 
sort of administrative savings or other benefits to the overall cost 
of administering the new park headquarters? 

Mr. Knox. Yes. That’s one of the factors we’re considering in 
terms of what’s the right organizational structure for the park. 

Senator Heinrich. Did the original Manhattan Project study call 
out any specific locations as ideal or suitable for the park head- 
quarters? 

Mr. Knox. The “fonzie” on the Special Resource Study that was 
issued in 2010 recommended Los Alamos. 

Senator Heinrich. Thank you. 



78 


That will do it for me, thank you. 

Senator Cassidy. Senator King, would you like to make any ad- 
ditional comments? 

Senator King. Yes, the first thing I want to do is fess up. I found 
a great app. [Laughter.] 

Senator King. Passports to your National Parks, and it is done 
by Eastern National, a non-for-profit partner of the National Park 
Service. So I was bully ragging you improperly. You cannot buy 
your passes on the app which I think you should be able to, but 
it is very informative and a good app. So congratulations. [Laugh- 
ter.] 

Are you familiar with the Roosevelt Campobello International 
Park? 

Mr. Knox. Not very, you know, I know about it, but I have not 
actually been there myself. 

Senator King. Well, here is the issue. It is unique in that it is 
really not part of the National Park Service per se. It is an inter- 
national park. I think it is the only one in the world established 
by treaty with Canada some 50 years ago. The problem is that the 
National Park Service keeps treating it as if it is one of their 
parks. They intercept the budget, and then it comes to Congress. 
I am going to see what I can do to make this budget come directly 
from the park to Congress and not go through the Department of 
the Interior. I know Senator Harkin worked on this for many 
years, and he is on the Board of this park. It is a little embar- 
rassing because the Canadians fund their side of this. It is a 50/ 
50 split, and they fund it automatically, and we quibble and change 
and sequester it and everything else. 

I feel it is a treaty obligation and should not be treated as just 
another National Park that happens to be very far to our East. So 
I just want to alert you to the fact that this is a concern and that 
I believe that this park should have the status that it in fact has 
an established by international treaty, not by act of Congress. So 
we will be discussing that, and I will be discussing that at a later 
date with the Secretary. 

Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator Cassidy. If there are no more questions for today, mem- 
bers may also submit written questions for the record. The record 
will be open for two weeks. Thank you, Mr. Knox, for your time 
and testimony. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:37 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 



APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 


( 79 ) 



80 


U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
Subcommittee on National Parks 
June 10, 2015 Hearing: Pending Legislation 
Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Victor Knox 


Questions from Senator Lisa Murkowski 

Question 1 : In order to reroute and extend the North Country Trail to connect with the 
Appalachian Trail, there will be a need to acquire private land or obtain conservation 
easements over that private land for the construction of the trail. How many acres of 
private land would need to be acquired to complete the current trail route? 

Answer: The current authorized route of the trail in northeastern Minnesota traverses 
approximately 93 miles of both public and private lands; we do not have an estimate of 
the amount of private land that would be involved if the trail was constructed as 
authorized. This section of the authorized route traverses black spruce and tamarack 
swamp. Because of the location and difficult environmental conditions within the 
swamp, efforts have been focused for many years on rerouting the trail rather than 
constructing this section. 

Question 2 : How many acres of private land would need to be acquired to complete the 
proposed reroute and extension of the trail? 

Answer: Approximately seventy percent of the proposed Minnesota re-route and 
Vermont extension consist of existing hiking trails. No additional easements, acquisition, 
or trail construction would be required for these portions of the revised route. The 
remaining thirty percent of the revised route (approximately 1 99 miles) would be new 
trail located on a combination of public and private lands. 

The NFS has identified respective corridors several miles wide within which the trail 
would eventually be laid out, but those portions of the trail that have yet to be built have 
not been laid out in detail. Therefore, at this time we cannot determine the acreage of 
private lands that may be needed. The flexibility provided by these corridors would 
allow the NFS and its partners to design routes that vrill minimize the amount of private 
land involved. It is the intention of the NFS to pursue donations, easements, and 
agreements to ensure access whenever possible. 

Question 3 : Does the National Fark Service have the authority to acquire this private 
land by condemnation? 

Answer: No. The National Fark Service does not have the authority to acquire private 
lands for the North Country National Scenic Trail by condemnation. The language 
originally authorizing the North Country National Scenic Trail in 1980 specifically 
prohibited Federal agencies from acquiring land for the trail. The Omnibus Fublic Land 
Management Act of 2009 amended that language, providing Federal agencies the 


1 



81 


authority to acquire lands for the trail, but only from willing sellers. It is the intention of 
the NPS, however, to pursue donations, easements, and agreements to ensure access 
whenever possible. 


2 



82 


Question from Senator BiU Cassidy 

Question : How often does a special resource study recommend that the study area not 
become a unit of the National Park System? Please provide data for the last 10 years. 

Answer: For the 10 years from 2005 to 2014, the NPS completed 29 special resource 
studies. Of those 29, only 10 of the study areas met all of the criteria for inclusion in the 
National Park System and thus were recommended for inclusion. The results were 
similar for other types of studies - for national heritage areas, national trails, and wild 
and scenic rivers - in that many of the resources studied did not meet the criteria 
necessary to recommend designation. 


3 



83 


Question from Senator Debbie Stabenow 

Question : Will no additional funds be required to add mileage to the North Country 
National Scenic Trail, as proposed under the North Coimtry National Scenic Trail 
Adjustment Act (S. 403)? 

Answer: The NFS anticipates that constructing and maintaining the Arrowhead reroute 
and the Vermont extension of the North Country National Scenic Trail would not require 
additional federal ftmding because the work would be done primarily by volunteers using 
hand tools, and current NFS staff would provide route planning and support for the 
volunteers who would help develop and maintain the path. 

Recent average expenditures for volunteer supplies have cost the North Country National 
Scenic Trail approximately $60,000 per year. The net increase of approximately 546 
miles to the current trail would increase operational costs by approximately $7,000, split 
between NFS support and that independently generated by the trail chapters and 
affiliates. The NFS portions could be accommodated within the trail’s current budget. 


4 



84 


Questions from Senator Jeff Flake 

Question 1 : During the hearing, you acknowledged that the NFS believes the bison 
population in Grand Canyon National Park is damaging park resources and that the herd 
is too large. Despite this growing problem and the increased damage that is occurring, the 
Park Service has already taken more than a year to evaluate bison-management options, 
and believes it will take at least another six months before the Park Service issues a draft 
plan. It remains unclear how long the Park Service will then take to issue a final plan and 
begin implementation. We have a very real problem at the Grand Canyon, and taking 
two-plus years to simply develop a draft plan is far too long to wait while the bison 
continue to damage park resources and archeological sites. What can the Park Service do 
right now to accelerate the decision-making process? 

Answer: The NFS considers this a high priority planning project and is working 
diligently with our partners - the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the U.S. Forest 
Service, and the Bureau of Land Management - to complete the plan quickly while also 
providing opportunities for public participation. The NPS will continue to look for 
additional opportunities to expedite the planning process with our partners. 

Question 2 : How much did the Park Service pay for each of the professional culling 
operations referenced in your written testimony (i.e.. Rock Creek Park, Catoctin 
Mountain Park, and Chaimel Island National Park)? 

Answer: It should be noted that the following three examples vary greatly in the type of 
activities that were conducted, in the environments where they took place, and in the 
means through which they were contracted. Therefore, they should not be seen as 
representative of how the NPS funds or conducts culling operations across the National 
Park System. 

Catoctin Mountain Park : NPS used USDA/Wildlife Services (WS) as the contractor. The 
total cost (includes the contract and costs to administer the program) for the past 6 years 
(2010-2015) has been approximately $571,000. Because Catoctin Mountain Park is the 
location of the Presidential retreat Camp David, part of the cost relates to conducting 
these operations near a high security area. 

Rock Creek Park: NPS used USDA/WS as the contractor. The total cost for the past 3 
years (2013-2015) has been approximately $52,500. Rock Creek Park is located wholly 
within Washington, D.C., and is surrounded by densely populated urban areas. 

Channel Islands National Park: The situation at Channel Islands differs from the above 
examples because it was not a culling operation to reduce populations, but a total 
elimination of non-native ungulates. These types of operations tend to be more expensive 
because the costs go up as the populations go down. In addition, the logistics of 
conducting this program on an island also raised costs significantly. NPS used a non- 
profit organization as the contractor at a cost of approximately $519,000. 


5 



85 


Question 3 ; How much has the Park Service spent on professional sharpshooters to assist 
with culling operations in national parks over the last ten fiscal years? 

Answer: Contracts for professional sharpshooters are handled by each park individually, 
so the NPS does not have a total cost associated with this tool. There are approximately 
12-15 NPS units that have used or are still using professional sharpshooters as contractors 
over the past 10 years to assist with culling operations. This is in addition to those 
mentioned above and below. 

Question 4 ; How much has the Park Service spent to use National Park Service 
employees to conduct lethal culling operations in national parks over the last ten fiscal 
years? 

Answer: Gettysburg is the only NPS unit that has used NPS employees to cull ungulates 
as part of a formal program over the past 10 years. The total cost for the years 2010-2013 
was approximately $86,000. At other parks, NPS employees have culled ungulates as 
part of their duties so the cost is not tracked. 

Question 5 : How long did it take the National Park Service to develop and finalize elk 
management plans using skilled volunteers to cull elk in Rocky Mountain National Park 
in Colorado and Theodore Roosevelt National Park in South Dakota? 

Answer: The elk management plan for Rocky Moimtain.National Park took just under 5 
years to finalize (Notice of Intent published May 2003 and Record of Decision signed 
February 2008), while the elk management plan for Theodore Roosevelt National Park 
took just under 6 years to finalize (Notice of Intent published August 2004 and Record of 
Decision signed June 2010). 

Question 6 : As part of establishing a bison management plan, you indicate that the Park 
Service “would follow applicable federal law and regulation with regard to disposition of 
carcasses.” Please explain how applicable federal laws and regulations would affect the 
ability of skilled volunteers to keep bison meat as part of a culling operation at Grand 
Canyon National Park. For example, under current federal law and regulations could 
skilled volunteers keep an entire bison carcass harvested as part of a culling operation? 

Answer: In general, the NPS has flexibility in “providing for the destruction” of 
“detrimental” wildlife taken under 54 USC 100752. Assuming there are no park-specific 
rules that prevent possession, this could allow volunteers to possess carcasses or parts of 
carcasses (meat) that are taken as a result of an approved program. Disposal of carcasses 
and meat in NPS culling operations has varied, depending on operational and resource 
needs, state agency preferences, local community demand, and other logistical factors. A 
skilled volunteer in a culling program may not have the same right to a particular carcass 
that a hunter would, but still may well be able to obtain and keep meat or a carcass, 
depending on the design and needs of the program. At Theodore Roosevelt and Rocky 
Moimtain National Parks, the NPS transferred carcasses to the respective state wildlife 


6 



86 


agencies and they distributed the meat to a variety of sources, including the skilled 
volunteers. 

Question 7 ; If the Park Service settles on a management program that uses skilled 
volunteers, what is the process for volunteer selection? That is, would the Arizona Game 
and Fish Department run the program through a draw process or otherwise put forward 
candidates who are eligible to participate? 

Answer: There are a variety of options available to NPS that could include state 
involvement in helping to select and train skilled volimteers, who can be signed up 
through the NPS Volunteers in Parks program. In Rocky Mountain National Park, the 
Colorado Division of Wildlife was very involved in the training program, while at 
Theodore Roosevelt National Park, it was the NPS who conducted the training. State 
licenses were not required at either Rocky Mountain or Theodore Roosevelt National 
Parks, so there was no need for the volunteers to go through the state license drawing 
system. 


7 



87 



Ihe Honorable Lisa Murkowski, Chairman 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell, 1lahking:Memher'*:Ci*^ 

U S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 
Washington, D,C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Murkowskl and Ranking Member Cantwell, 


On behalf of American Rivers’ more than 100,000 members and supporters nationwide, I am 
writing to express our strong support for legislation that would designate 61.7 miles of the 
Farmington River and Salmon Brook in Connecticut as a Wild & Scenic River, Passage of S. 329 
will help promote the great recreational opportunities, biological diversity, and cultural resources 
on this beautiful and scenic river and one of its most important tributaries. 

The boundaries and property protections laid out in S. 329 will not only enhance recreational and 
environmental quality, they will ensure that the local zoning rules of the 10 townships abutting 
the waterways in question protect the communities from federal overreach in land management 
Furthermore, the Rainbow Dam and Reservoir are entirely outside the river segments designated 
by S. 329, leaving their energy production and transmission capabilities unaffected by the Act, 
Persistent collaboration between local conservation partners and municipalities has enabled not 
only the areas immediately affected to benefit, but those downstream as well. 

Support for the designation over the past nine years has been consistently bi-partisan and 
widespread. The Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic Study Committee 
voted in favor of Wild & Scenic River designation for the river segments and developed a 
comprehensive management plan. The State of Connecticut’s General Assembly has endorsed 
the designation of the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook as components of the 
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (Public Act 08-37). Several Members of Congress, 
State, and local officials representing the affected waterways also support the designation. 

American Rivers was pleased to provide technical assistance to the Spoonville Dam removal 
project in the TarifFville Gorge on the Lower Farmington. Removal of this breached concrete 
dam further improved recreational opportunities on this section of the river, extending a 
Whitewater run and removing a significant safety hazard for both novice boaters and swimmers. 
The dam removal, supported by the communities and Connecticut Light and Power (its former 
owner) kept with the goals of the Wild & Scenic designation to protect the recreational and 
scenic values of the river, while making the river more accessible to the public. 

Sincerely, 

bA 

Jim Bradley, 

Vice President for Policy and Government Relations 



88 


t 


Ai¥iERii:>%ry 

WHI’rEWATTEK 


w \vw.americanwh ite waler.org 


Robert A. Nasdor 
Northeast Stewaniship Director 
65 Blueberr}-’ Hill Laiie 
SudbuiT, MA 01776 
617-584-4566 
boh(aj.americanwhilm!ater.ors. 


UNITED STATES SENATE 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

JUNE 10, 2015 

COMMENTS OF AMERICAN WHITEWATER ON S. 329 
LOWER FARMINGTON RIVER AND SALMON BROOK 
WILD AND SCENIC RIVER ACT 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Ccmtvvell and members of the Subcommittee on 
National Parks: 

American Whitewater is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) organization devoted to protecting and 
restoring America’s whitevvater resources and to enhancing the public’s ability to enjoy 
them safely. American Whitewater is a membership organization with over 5,000 
members and 100 affiliate clubs nationwide. Our organization represents thousands of 
river enthusiasts who enjoy human-powered river recreation on our nation’s public 
waters. Our staff and members spend much of their free time enjoying Wild and Scenic 
Rivers throughout the country, including the Lower Fannington River and Salmon Brook 
in Connecticut. 

In 1968, Congress passed the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, saying “selected rivers of the 
Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable 
scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values, 
shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate 
environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future 
generations.” 

American Whitewater strongly supports the designation of approximately 60 miles of the 
Low'er Farmington River and Salmon Brook under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The 
designation would protect these rivers from degradation so that future generations can 
enjoy the scenic and recreational values that these rivers possess. Our members have a 
significant interest in the preservation of these rivers so that they can continue to enjoy 
the recreational opportunities that these rivere provide. 

The river segments proposed for designation under the Wild and Scenic River Act would 
protect sections of the Farmington River that provide northeast residents with important 
boating opportunities on river segments that include the Tarrifville Gorge section of the 
Farmington River in Connecticut. This river section is the site of the annual Whitewater 



89 


Triple Crown that regularly draws national competitors. The Farmington River provides 
our community with one of the best boating opportunities in the region, and a Wild and 
Scenic River designation will help protect this resource from harm by new dams, 
diversions, and other degradations. 

American Whitewater has an interest in the protection of Wild and Scenic Rivers for 
several reasons: 


• Wild and Scenic Rivers provide high quality recreational opportunities: High quality 
opportunities for human-powered recreation on our nation’s waterways have been 
severely limited by the construction of dams, reservoirs, and diversions. The 
National Wild and Scenic River System was established to protect the free flow'ing 
condition of selected rivers, and provides reliable recreation opportunities for all to 
enjoy. 

• Wild and Scenic Rivers are important for quality of life: The quality of Wild and 
Scenic Rivers and the superb scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, 
historic, cultural and other similai' values they protect significantly add to high 
quality of life for communities in proximity to them. These waterways provide 
solitude and unparalleled opportunities to engage in activities that refresh the soul 
and body, and reinvigorate the mind. 

• Wild and Scenic River designation promotes a healthy economy: National Wild and 
Scenic River designation encourages tourism and provides important economic 
benefits to surrounding communities. Businesses that cater to tourists, including 
fishing guides, boat livery', and restaurants all benefit from the influx of outdoor 
recreation enthusiasts to the area. 

Congress created the National Wild and Scenic River System as a system to protect 

living free-llowing rivers for posterity. We urge you to support S.329. 


Thank you for your consideration. 



90 


Senator Richard Blumenthal 
Statement for the Record 

Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks Legislative 

Hearing 

Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 2:30 p.m.; Dirksen 366 
STATEMENT - As Prepared 


Thank you, Chairman Cassidy and Ranking Member Heinrich. 

I want to state for the record my strong support for bestowing a Wild and Scenic 
Designation on the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook. It is abundantly 
clear that these water bodies and their watersheds are immensely deserving of such 
a designation. The Farmington and Salmon Brook are places of recreation and 
community gathering, economic drivers, and admired natural environments for the 
communities they traverse. A Wild and Scenic Designation would appropriately 
honor and recognize the significance of these watersheds to Connecticut. 

The work to achieve a designation for the Lower Farmington River and Salmon 
Brook is an effort that began over ten years ago. After the great successes in 
preservation, community caretaking, and recreational popularity that stenmied 
from the 1994 Wild and Scenic Designation for the Upper Farmington River, the 
towns surrounding the Lower Farmington banded together to secure a similar 
designation. Spearheaded by Representatives Nancy Johnson and John Larson and 
aided by Senators Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman, this designation effort has been 
carried by a long lineage of congressional leadership — even as the arguments for 
establishing the designation have only grown stronger. 

As established in 1968 by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, a Wild and Scenic 
Designation is given to rivers with deep ties to the communities and regions 
through which they run. Rivers so designated have historic and culturally 
important connections to these communities, in addition to demonstrating 
outstanding characteristics of being scenic, untouched and unpolluted, and places 
of great recreation. The purpose of the designation is to preserve these 
characteristics for the people who live along these rivers as well as for those who 


1 



91 


travel from far and wide to enjoy the rivers’ benefits. The designation helps 
provide resources, support, partnerships, and expertise to maintain the significance 
of these rivers for generations to come. 

The tremendously significant characteristics of the Lower Famiington River and 
Salmon Brook more than justify a designation for these watersheds. According to 
data from the Farmington River Watershed Association, the Farmington River 
Watershed provides drinking water to over 600,000 people in Greater Hartford and 
the Farmington Valley. The river is also a diverse ecosystem that provides habitat 
to salmon for population restoration as well as to twelve different species of fresh 
water mussels. In the summer months, recreationalists enjoy fishing as well as 
canoeing and tubing down the rivers waters. The Farmington River is also known 
for its world-class rapids and has hosted numerous competitions, including national 
and Olympic trials. The banks of the Fannington River are heavily wooded, with 
biking, walking, and hiking trails running through the forested lands of the 
watershed. Furthennore, much of Connecticut's early history has strong 
connections to the Farmington River and its surrounding valley. 

The Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook enjoy an excellent and expert 
network of caretakers that have preserved and strengthened these bodies of water 
and have engaged the communities of the watershed, bolstering interest and 
encouraging stewardship. The Farmington River Watershed Association hosts 
picnics, events, competitions, and historic toms on and along the river and the 
Fannington River Coordinating Committee leads efforts to enhance water quality, 
reduce the threat of invasive species, and restore fish populations and critical 
habitat. The Lower Farmington community also has the example of the leadership 
that has come from the success of the Upper Farmington River Wild and Scenic 
Designation. With the coordinated dedication and infrastructure for stewardship 
already built into this watershed’s community, the establishment of a Wild and 
Scenic Designation for the Lower Fannington and Salmon Brook would be met by 
a seamless transition led by a highly capable coalition of devoted community 
members, volunteers, and people who care deeply about and are deeply impacted 
by these bodies of water. 

I hope that you find it in the interest of the Farmington Valley Region, 

Connecticut, and the nation to make this designation. The historic, cultural, and 
recreational significance of these river segments as well as the passion with which 
their surrounding communities care for them speak volumes for how much this 
designation would mean. Thank you for your consideration. 


2 



92 


June 17, 2015 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski, Chair 
The Honorable Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member 
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20510 


The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chairman 
The Honorable Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member 
House Committee on Natural Resources 
1324 Longworth House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20510 


Dear Senators Murkowski and Cantwell and Representatives Bishop and Grijalva, 

I am writing in support of the Wild & Scenic River designation for the Lower Farmington River and 
Salmon 

Brook. ! whole heartedly support S.329 and H.R. 646 and urge you to do all you can to move 
the designations bills forward. 

My home is located in Tariffville on the Farmington River just below the spot where the Salmon 

Brook enters, and just above the Tariffville Gorge. From my beautiful river front property I enjoy 

all the outstanding resource values of both watercourses, I fully understand that the Wild & Scenic 

designation fully protects private property rights and extinguishes the federal right of eminent domain. 

It would also continue the Connecticut practice of local control which means a lot to me as a resident 

and tax payer. River related issues would be solved more fairly, and local recreational and natural 
resources 

would be protected. 

Sincerely, 

Wanda H. Colman 


14 Man St. Ext., Tariffville, CT 06002 



93 



Connecticut Department of 
ENERGY & 
ENVIRONMENTAL 
PROTECTION 


79 elm Street • Hartford, CT 06106-5127 


www.ct.gov/deep Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer 


June 15, 2015 


The Honorable lisa Murkowski, Chair 
The Honorable Marla Cantwell, Ranking Member 
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20510 


The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chair 
The Honorable Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member 
House Committee on Natural Resources 
1324 Longworth House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20510 


RE: Proposed federal Wild & Scenic designation of Lower Farmington River & Salmon Brook 


Dear Senators Murkowski and Cantwell and Representatives Bishop and Grijalva: 

The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) continues to support the proposed 
Wild & Scenic designation of the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook. DEEP previously supported similar efforts 
to successfully obtain designation for both the Upper Farmington River and Eight Mile River, the two existing Wild & 
Scenic partnership rivers in Connecticut DEEP continues to be actively involved in the committees established to 
oversee these two Wild & Scenic designated areas. 


The proposed designation of the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Is complementary to DEEP's mission 
to conserve, improve and protect the natural resources and environment of the State of Connecticut. The "outstanding 
resource values" that have been identified as making the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook areas unique and 
significant -- geology, water quality, biological diversity, cultural landscape and recreation - mirror DEEP's objectives. 
Likewise, DEEP recognizes that successful accomplishment of its goals relies on cooperative partnerships with others. 
The "Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic Management Plan" (June 2011) created by the Study 
Committee in support of the proposed designation focuses on proactive strategies that can be implemented at the local 
level, where most important land use decisions are made. The federal technical and financial assistance that will 
become available if designation is granted will be an Important element In complementing State resources to achieve 
desired natural resource and environmental goals, and maintain the quality of life that the citizens of Connecticut have 
come to expect. 

DEEP appreciates this opportunity to again express its support for the proposed Wild & Scenic designation. 

Once designated, DEEP intends to remain an active partner associated with the Lower Farmington River and Salmon 
Brook Wild & Scenic area. 


Sincerely yours, 



Commissioner 




94 


East Granby 

InCa 

June 14, 2015 


The Honorable Lisa Murkowski, Chair 
The Honorable Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member 
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20510 


The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chairman, 

The Honorable Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member 
House Committee on Natural Resources 
1324 Longworth House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20510 


Dear Senators Murkowski and Cantwell and Representatives Bishop and Grijalva: 

I am writing on behalf of the East Granby Land Trust to indicate our ongoing support of the Wild & Scenic 
River designation for the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook. We support S.329 and H.R. 646 and 
urge you to do ail you can to move the designation bills forward. 

East Granby is fortunate in having the Farmington River and Salmon Brook coursing through our town. The 
Tariffville Gorge draws whitewater paddlers from near and far to compete and play in its famous rapids and the 
river and brook provide excellent fishing. The high quality of the water and numerous other natural, cultural 
and historical values delight visitors and enrich the lives of our residents. 

The East Granby Land Trust is convinced Wild & Scenic designation will enable our town to continue to 
protect these outstanding resources by enhancing their prestige as well as providing access to additional sources 
of technical guidance and potential funding for local organizations involved in protecting the river and brook. 
Wild & Scenic designation will also result in more visitors seeking food, accommodations and other services 
from local small businesses. 


It is also important to note that the Partnership Wild & Scenic designation in the bills fully protects private 
property ri^ts and extinguishes the federal right of eminent domain. It will not require any new land use 
regulations and will leave in place local control under existing town and State of Connecticut regulations. 



Jc^ Erbland, President 
East Granby Land Trust 


CC: Sally Rieger, Chairman, Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic Study Committee 



95 



June 23, 2015 


The Honorable Lisa Murkowski, Chair 
The Honorable Maria Canhvell, Ranking Member 
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 
Washington, DC 20510 


The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chairman 
The Honorable Raul Grijalva, Ranking member 
House Committee on Natural Resources 
1324 Longworth House office Building 
Washington, DC 20510 


Dear Senators Murkowski and Cantwell and Representatives Bishop and Grijalva, 


I am writing on behalf of the Farmington Valley Visitors Association (FVVA), to show our 
continued support for the Wild & Scenic River designation of the Lower Farmington River and 
Salmon Brook, We support S.329 and H.R. 646 and urge you to do all you can to move the 
designation bills forward, 

FVVA’s mission is to enhance economic vitality within the Farmington Valley and promote the 
valley to residents and visitors. Our commitment to recognize, protect, and promote the cultural, 
historical, and recreational sites in the area meld completely with the goals of the Wild & Scenic 
River Designation, The Farmington River is one of the valley’s treasures that we encourage 
residents and visitors to take advantage of The distinction will have a positive impact on business, 
as well as potential funding for conservation and of course, local prestige. 

We hope you’ll continue your tireless efforts to gain the important Wild & Scenic River 
Designation, The designation would not impinge on private property rights and even eliminates the 
federal right of eminent domain. 


Sincerely, 

Nancy Weiner-Anstey 
Executive Director, FVVA 


FARMINGTON VALLEY VISITORS ASSOCIATION 
33 East Main Street POBo.xl49I Avon, CT 06001 
860,676,8878 I-800-4-WELCOME (493-5266) 
WWW, Fwa.com fiva@snct,net 



96 







Misverit’fe 

H E t. 1 COPTERS 


June 24, 2015 

Honorable Jeff Flake 
US Senate 

413 Russell Senate Office Building 
Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Flake: 

On behalf of our three companies, please accept our thanks for your efforts to preserve our 
national parks and protect access for those who wish to experience them. The work you do 
today will pay dividends for future generations. 

We are proud to provide access to our national parks and monuments to countless individuals 
who utilize our services and become advocates for these treasures. For a brief time in 2013, 
the only way the public had any access to the beauty of much of the Grand Canyon (which had 
been closed during a federal government shutdown) was through an air tour experience. 

While our industry saw a very brief increase in business, the consequences of the closure of the 
Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) were long lasting. Domestic and international tourism 
business seen at the GCNP decreased in the following months because of the uncertainty 
associated with the temporary closure. 

We want to applaud you for introducing both S. 1750, the Public Access to Public Land 
Guarantee Act, and S. 2104, the National Park Access Act. These critical bills, if signed into law, 
will provide the tools and protections necessary to keep our national treasures open in times of 
stalemate in the federal appropriations and budget process. Granting the ability for the federal 



97 


government to enter into agreements with state and local governments to keep these national 
parks open, coupled with the ability to make those entities made whole after making the 
associated financial investments, will ensure the unfortunate circumstance of 2013 will not 
happen again. 

Thank you for your work on this, and please contact us if we can help move these critical bills 
forward. 

Sincerely, 






Brenda Halverson 
Papillon Airways 
President, CEO 


Alan Stephen 

Grand Canyon Airlines 

Vice President of Corporate Affairs 



Brian Brusa 

Maverick Aviation Group 

Vice President of Government Relations 



98 


Granby 

"Trust 

Treserving Qranbys Tdatural hferttagi 




' -n... -A- 



June 15, 2015 


The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member 

The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chairman 

The Honorable Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources & theHouse Committee on Natural Resource 


Dear Senators Murkowski and Cantwell and Representatives Bishop and Grijalva, 

I am writing on behalf of the Granby Land Trust (Granby, Connecticut) to indicate our ongoing support of 
the Wild and Scenic designation for the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook. We support S.329 
and H,R.646 and urge you to do ail you can to move the bills forward. 

GLT sees the designation as essentia! to insuring continuation of the high level water quality that 
characterizes these unique streams and their associated watersheds. This further insures that the Land 
Trust's many properties in the watershed will receive significantly enhanced protection. The 
designation contains no threat to private property rights and will actually enhance the value of property 
owners. There are only positives in this designation. 



Rick Orluk 
President 
Granby Land Trust 


Granby, C.on 



99 


June 24,2015 


The Honorable Lisa Murkowski, Chair 
The Honorable Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member 
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20510 


The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chairman, 

The Honorable Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member 
House Committee on Natural Resources 
1324 Longworth House Office Building 
Washington, D C. 20510 


Dear Senators Murkowski and Cantwell and Representatives Bishop and Grijalva: 


It is with some hesitation that 1 mention that 1 have run a small canoe and kayak company for over 30 years on 
the Farmington River, in that it would tend to bias the petitioners to believe the motivation is financial. While 
there may be a financial consequence from designating the Lower Farmington River Wild and Scenic it is my 
heartfelt belief such a designation will help preserve something for future generations to enjoy. 

It makes sense to unite the entire river under the protection of the Wild and Scenic Act in that the river as a 
whole is truly unique. The upper Farmington has white water and the lower Farmington has tranquil flows, all 
within a comparatively short river length. 

This amazing diversity within such a short span of river is a result of the Glaciers which altered the direction of 
the river’s flow. The upper section of the River flows like most rivers, southward, but the Lower Farmington 
flows northward into the Connecticut River. The Lower section of the River was actually a large lake at one 
time. The sediment that filled this lake not only altered the course of the river it resulted in some of the most 
fertile agricultural land in Connecticut. 

I am writing not only on my behalf as a lover of the river and a witness to the joy it brings to so many but on 
behalf of the Farmington River Watershed Association to join in to indicate our ongoing support of the Wild & 
Scenic River designation for the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook. We support S.329 and H.R. 646 
and urge you to do all you can to move the designation bills forward. 

The Farmington is truly a unique river and deserves to be protected, thank you for your time and consideration 
on this very important matter that will impact future generations. 

Sincerely, 

John Kiilick, Owner 
Huck Finn Adventures 
PO Box 137 
ColUnsvilie, CT 06022 
860-693-0385 



100 



OFFICERS 

PRESro&JT 
Charfes Doty 

First Vice Presejent 
L t.Col.Edgar F Russell HI CSAF (tet) 

Second Vice president 
N eal Dyei 

Treasurer — 

Robert Wfllaitl 

Recording Secretary 

Patricia MuUan 

Membership Secretary 
S usan Denttu 

UNa>LNi^ Editor 
W endy Swanson 

BOARD OF GOVERNORS 

Chairman 
E dwin C. Bearss 

Hiriema Emnihii 
National Park Siniu 

Bucnu Carnahan 
Past Pnsidial 
Tbt IJncak Grv^ t^DC 

RitaBastck 
Pnd^lEmtriaa 
fp'aete/i'sj4ami CaoStioa 

Dt. Gabor S. Borin 
DinOtr, Chd/W'arlmtiaiU 
GtttjfshniCoi&ff 

Hon. AlanJ. ITixon 
United Slaks SeoaU (ret.) 

Hon. Chades Madiias 
Vailtd Stales Senate (ret.) 

Hon. Paul Findley 
U.S. House ^P,^senlaiim (sti.) 

Rev. Philip B.Kunhardt, 111 
Asetbm-, Histeriait 

Paul D Pascal 

HONORARY MEMBERS 

Dr. Rkhaid N. Current 
Dr. Mark E. Nedy.Jr. 

Dr. Wayne Tem|rfe 


The Lincoln Group Inc. 

OF THE District of Columbia 

ORGANIZED 1935 


P.O. Box 6676 
Washington, DC 20016 
April 12. 2008 


Dear Mayor Dixon, 


I am writing this letter for the members of the Lincoln Group of the District of 
Columbia. We are the oldest, continuously active Lincoln society in America. We 
are active in supporting the preservation of historic monuments and in assisting 
others in their research by providing them with historic information and sources. 
We have been honored by presidents and major dignitaries. 

This letter is to impress on you the importance of preserving the President Street 
Station and its historic value as it relates to Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln used this 
train station as a congressman in 1848. In 1861 as president-elect, Lincoln 
passed through the station during the night of February 22-23 to avoid the 
Baltimore plot on the way to Washington for his inauguration. He used this train 
station In June 1862 and again in June and July 1864. It is one of the sites that 
Lincoln scholars visit to walk the ground of our greatest president. 

As we approach the Lincoln Bicenntennial In 2009 the President Street Station Is 
a site for that event A National Historic Landmark designation is a confirmation 
to us as well as national recognition to alt Americans that the President Street 
Station has a national significance. We encourage you to confirm Its national 
significance by protecting it as a National Historic Landmark. Our time is running 
out to save this national treasure. Once it is gone part of our history is forever 
lost. Future generations will not know the value of Baltimore's President Street 
Station as it relates to Abraham Lincoln. Saving it before the Bicentennial of 2009 
would make a statement of Baltimore's historic significance in the life of Abraham 
Lincoln. 

Thank you for your interest and I am hoping to hear from you as to the status of 
the President Street Station. 


Sincerely, 

Charles Doty 



President - Lincoln Group of DC 


P. O. BOX 5fi76 . WASHINGTON, DC * 20016 
www.lincolnGroup.org 


101 


WASHINGTON BUREAU • NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE 

1156 IS^*" STREET. NWSUITE 915 -WASHINGTON. DC 20005 P (202) 463-2940 ■ F (202)463-2953 
E-MAIL: WASHINGTONBUREAU@NAACPNET.ORG • WEB ADDRESS WWW.NAACP ORG 


June 8, 2015 


The Honorable Bill Cassidy 
Chairman 

Subcommittee on National Parks 
Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources 

United States Senate 
Washington, DC 20510 

RE: ISJAACP STRONG SUPPORT FOR S. 

STUDY ACT 


The Honorable Martin Heinrich 
Ranking Member 
Subcommittee on National Parks 
Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources 

United States Senate 
Washington, DC 20510 

.0, THURGOOD MARSHALL'S ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 


Dear Chairman Cassidy and Ranking Member Heinrich: 

On behalf of the NAACP, our nation's oldest, largest and most widely-recognized grassroots- 
based civil rights organization, t am writing to express our strong support for S. 610, Thurgooct 
Marshall's Elementary School Study Act. This crucial legislation would begin the process of 
preserving this important marker In our nation's history, PS 103, in Baltimore, MD., for the 
benefit of future generations. It is vital that every generation understand what preceded it. 

PS103 is a nationally important historic site as the place where young Thurgood Marshall spent 
the first six years of his public school education. Every scholar of civil rights has heard the story 
that Marshall, who went on to successfully argue one of the most important civil rights cases 
before the U.S. Supreme Court prior to being named the first African American Justice of the 
U.S. Supreme Court, learned the U.S. Constitution in the basement of the building while serving 
detention. Whether or not this actually happened, the building powerfully tells the story of 
racial segregation in America and the rise of one of the country's preeminent thinkers and 
pioneers in civil rights. 

S. 610, the Thurgood Marshall's Elementary School Study Act would authorize a Special 
Resource Study on the PS 103, the Elementary school that Thurgood Marshal attended in the 
Upton neighborhood of West Baltimore. This study is the first step in the National Park Service's 
process for establishing new units of the National Park System. The NAACP strongly supports 
this study to determine the merits of commemorating the early education of a man whose 
importance in the history of our nation cannot, and should not, be understated. 



102 


Thank you in advance for taking the opinion and concerns of the NAACP into consideration 
when the Subcommittee deliberates S. 610 later this week. Should you have any questions or 
comments on the NAACP position, please feel free to cal! me in my office at (202} 463-2940. 


Sincerely, 



Hilary O. Shelton 

Director, NAACP Washington Bureau & 

Senior Vice President for Policy and Advocacy 


CC: Senator Ben Cardin 

Members, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on 
National Parks 



103 


i^h 

country.'S 


trail 

ASSOCIATION ’ 


Your Ad^ntum Starts Nearby, 


Statement of Bruce E. Matthews, Executive Director of the 
North Country Trail Association, submitted to the 
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 
Subcommittee on National Parks, regarding 
S. 403: North Country National Scenic Trail Route Adjustment Act 

June 10, 2015 

SUMMARY 

S. 403, the North Country National Scenic Trail Route Adjustment Act, is a bipartisan, 
locally supported effort adjusting the route of the North Country National Scenic Trail 
(NCNST) to: (1) include existing world-class hiking trails in northeastern Minnesota, and 
(2) connect with the Appalachian National Scenic Trail in Vermont. In total, these actions 
would add a net gain of approximately 500 new miles to the NCNST , 400 of which are 
already constructed. This bill would remove the originally designated section of about 
100 miles between Duluth and Grand Rapids, MN, saving significant constmction and 
maintenance costs as well as avoiding wetlands. This bill does not require nor assume 
any additional appropriations. As has been the case in its 35 years, the NCNST, including 
these new sections, is being built, maintained and protected through the partnership 
efforts of volunteer citizen stewards with the National Park Service. 


1 




104 


STATEMENT 

Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member Heinrich, and distinguished members of the 
Subcommittee on National Parks of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, on behalf of the 3,000-member North Country Trail Association (NCTA) and 
the 1 5,000 members of our partnership and alliance organizations, thank you for this 
opportunity to further support S. 403, the North Country National Scenic Trail Route 
Adjustment Act (Act). 

I commend Senator Klobuchar and her counterpart in the House, Congressman Nolan 
(MN-08), for reintroducing this bill in the 1 14* Congress, which will revise the 
authorized route of the North Country National Scenic Trail in northeastern Minnesota to 
include existing hiking trails along Lake Superior's north shore and in the Superior and 
Chippewa National Forests. S. 403 also connects the North Country National Scenic Trail 
(NCNST) with its sister trail, the Appalachian National Scenic Trail in Vermont. 

We note the strong connections and appreciate the support from a number of members of 
this Subcommittee with the North Country NST. Senator Portman’s state of Ohio hosts 
1,050 miles of the NCNST, about 800 miles of which are co-located on the famous 
Buckeye Trail. Senator Hoeven’s North Dakota anchors the western terminus of this 
great trail, at the point where the Garrison Dam holds back the Missouri River to form 
Lake Sakakawea. Senator Sanders’ constituents in Vermont have been a driving force in 
this effort to connect these two great trails in the Green Mountain State. With 1, 150 trail 
miles. Senator Stabenow’s State of Michigan holds more North Country Trail than any 
other state; only Florida and California have more National Scenic Trail miles. These and 
our other 4 states through which the NCNST passes have a strong constituent base of 
volunteers and supporters of the trail. 

I represent these volunteers and citizen stewards who build, maintain, protect and tell the 
story of the North Country NST. The North Country Trail Association is the major 
partner with the National Park Service, the agency charged with administering the Trail. 
The public/private partnership thus established enables the National Park Service to offer 
a 4,600 mile long by 18 inches wide National Park, at the minimal cost of 3.5 FTE’s and 


2 



105 


less than a million dollars annually. Further, for every federal dollar invested in this 
partnership in 2014, our volunteers returned $5.17 in hard dollar contributions and 
sweat equity. These volunteers are mobilized on behalf of the ideals represented in the 
National Trails System Act and the enduring notion that they’re engaged in ‘paying it 
forward,’ with a legacy effort to benefit all Americans, now and in the future. 

What does S. 403 call for? 

This bill simply amends the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(8)) by: 

(1 ) Substituting new language delineating the North Country National Scenic 
Trail’s total length (from 3,200 to 4,600 miles); 

(2) Re-defming the eastern terminus as the Appalachian National Scenic Trail in 
Vermont; and 

(3) Substituting a new map reference for the original, with the new map showing 
the Minnesota Arrowhead and the eastern terminus extension into Vermont. 

What does this route adjustment accomplish? 

S. 403 completes the original vision for the North Country National Scenic Trail 
(NCNST) by extending the eastern terminus to link with the Appalachian Trail in 
Vermont. And this legislation legitimizes the de-facto route of the NCNST in Miinnesota 
since 2005, with the formal inclusion of Minnesota’s Superior Hiking, Border Route and 
Kekekabic Trails as officially part of the North Country National Scenic Trail. 

Who benefits? 

Outdoor recreationists — hikers, backpackers, hunters, anglers, wildlife watchers will 
enjoy greater access to public lands. Local businesses will benefit from increased 
visitation and tourism dollars — a sustainable source of revenues. Local communities will 
enjoy the increased quality of life values associated with non-motorized trails. Private 
landowners will see property values increase in direct proportion to the proximity of the 
NCNST. Families gain access to low cost, low threshold opportunities for healthy 
outdoor recreation right nearby. Conservation agencies w ill bolster their corps of citizen 
stewards with whom they partner in managing public resources, and without which vast 


3 



106 


tracts of public lands would be far less accessible. There is widespread and documented 
local support for this trail re-route, (please see supporting materials) 

Who pays? 

There are no additional appropriations requested by or associated with this bill. The 

model developed in this private/public partnership over the past 35 years stretches 
existing federal funds and matches them with non-federal sources and private funding to 
cover the costs of building, maintaining and protecting the trail. And in fact, S. 403 will 
save money . With this Act the sensitive wetlands of the original route between Duluth 
and Grand Rapids, MN are avoided, where it could cost as much as 12 times more to 
construct the bridges, puncheon and boardwalk needed to cross them, not to mention the 
annual maintenance due to frost heaves and frozen ground. 

From 3,200 to 4,600 miles? 

The original 1980 authorizing legislation contains the language “a trail of approximately 
3200 miles.” This was clearly an estimate, since almost none of the NCNST had been 
built when the 1970’s feasibility studies estimated its length. Since then much of the 
NCNST has been constructed and the route identified; the trail is on the ground and we 
have more sophisticated tools for measuring it. In carrying out Congress’ intent for the 
original NCNST the actual mileage is closer to 4,100 miles, even without the Minnesota 
Arrowhead or the eastern terminus extension into Vermont (which add another 500 
miles). S. 403 would designate a net gain of approximately 500 new miles as National 
Scenic Trail. The Minnesota Arrowhead section contains about 540 miles — 400 of which 
is already constructed in the Superior Hiking, Border Route and Kekekabic Trails. In 
Vermont there’s a roughly 60 mile gap between the current terminus at Crown Point, 

N.Y. and the Appalachian Trail. Subtract the originally designated 100 miles of 
Minnesota wetlands to get 500 newly designated additional miles of NST. 

Fortunately this does not mean 500 more miles needing to be built. Factoring in the 
already volunteer-constructed (and world-class!) trail in northeastern Minnesota plus the 


4 



107 


existing Trails Around Middlebury and the Long Trail in Vermont leaves between 100 to 
200 miles of new trail needing to be built. 

The question of eminent domain 

No federal agency, including the Nationeil Park Service, has ever had the authority to use 
eminent domain for the North Country National Scenic Trail (NCNSTT Less than 50 of 
the 4,600 miles of NCNST are actually owned or leased by the NFS, and these are in the 
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore or the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, 
acquisition for both of which preceded the 1980 authorization of the NCNST. 

The only land acquisition authority for the NPS on the NCNST was granted by Congress 
in 2009, and enables the NPS to acquire land only “with the consent of the owner of the 
land or interest in the land.” (Section 5(a)(8)) of the National Trails System Act (P.L. 90- 
543, as amended through P.L. 111-11). 

The key to building and protecting the trail lies with building local relationships with 
landowners and land managers — something best accomplished by our local NCTA 
volunteers. Remaining trail to be completed outside of the Chippewa, Superior or Green 
Mountain National Forests will need access to private lands, which requires willing 
landowners recognizing the value of dedicating access to some of their land in the public 
trust. This takes time, and investment in the local relationships thus built. It will not 
complete the trail off-road anytime soon, but it will complete the trail eventually and in a 
manner that creates sustainable value and local support and investment . 

What’s wrong with the original route in Minnesota? 

The original route between Duluth and Grand Rapids, MN passes through significant 
wetlands and tamarack/black spruce swamp. Building trail there requires extensive 
structures, bridges, puncheon, etc. which are not only expensive but need constant 
maintenance with the freeze/thaw climate conditions in the area. Cost estimates per mile 
in this terrain typically average 12 times more than standard natural surfaced trail. 
Environmental sensitivities exist over potential wetlands impacts. The original Minnesota 


5 



108 


route assumed, as with the rest of the NCNST, that a local cadre of volunteers would be 
mobilized to build and maintain the NCNST. None have surfaced for this particular 
wetlands segment since the 1 980 authorization of the NCNST. Instead, some 400-plus 
miles of world-class hiking trails have been built and paid for (by volunteers) along the 
north shore of Lake Superior, along the Canadian border, and in the Boundary Waters 
Canoe Area Wilderness. Since 2005, hikers using the NCNST have adopted this 
“Minnesota Arrowhead” as part of the NCNST. The only things missing are the official 
trail signs and emblems, and the opportunity for local communities to derive tourism 
benefits from the official designation. 

Senator Klobuchar has championed this bill since her first introduction in the 1 1 1* 
Congress, following this with bills sponsored in the 1 12*, 113* and now this 114* 
Congress. In the House, Rep. Jim Oberstar (MN-08) first introduced the bill in the 110* 
Congress and again in the 1 1 1*'. Rep. Collin Peterson (MN-07) introduced the bill in the 
112* Congress, and Rep. Rick Nolan (MN-08) has championed the bill since then, in the 
113* and 114* Congresses. His bill, H.R. 799 in this 114* Congress has 1 5 bi-partisan 
co-sponsors. The momentum continues to grow, and it is time to pass this legislation so 
important to our North Country communities and those who find their recreation there. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

I submit and request that this statement become part of the Congressional record. 

Bruce E. Matthews 
Executive Director 
North Country Trail Association 
229 East Main St. 

Lowell, MI 9331 
(616) 897-5987 

bmatthews@northcountrytrail.org 


6 



109 


Supporting Materials 

1 . File folder with letters of support from local communities 

2. Health Benefits of Trails 

3. 2015 FAQ for S. 403/ H.R. 799, North Countrj'NST Route Adjustment Act 

4. Economic Benefits of Trails (American Fliking Society) 

5. Economic Benefits of Trails (Michigan Trails & Greenways Coalition) 

6. Economic Benefits of Trails (Minnesota Study Summary') 

7. Letter to House Committee on Natural Resources re: H.R. 799 (S, 403) signed by 35 
outdoor organizations 


7 



110 



ioariiig Brook Nature Center 

70 Gracey Road • CaBtofc CT060t9 • 860.693.0263 • Fax 860.693.0264 

vw»w.roaringl)rbok.oi 9 


June 10,2015 


Sally Rieger 

Lower Farmington River/Salmon Brook 

Wild & Scenic Study Committee 

749 Hopmeadow Street . . • \ 

Simsbury, CT 06070 i'r, ' ? 

■ DearSallyj- — ™. — ; 

1 am writing on behalf of Roaring Brook Nature Center to indicate our support for 
the Wild & Scenic River designation of the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook. 

As director of Roaring Brook Nature Center since 1 975, 1 have taken countless 
numbers of students and adults on trips throughout this watershed and I recognize its 
importance on so many levels. For many years we have offered a popular summer 
program for students entitled “Farmington River Ramblin.’” The program focuses on the 
concept of “multi-use,” from the obvious recreational usage to providing energy through 
hydropower to serving as habitat for all manner of wildlife from bald eagles to rare and 
endangered species of freshwater mussels. The River is also important for its place in 
Connecticut history as the site of many well-known industrial endeavors from the 
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. 

Salmon Brook, a major tributary of the Farmington River, is of value in its own 
right. I can recall the excitement of a group of students when they discovered an , 
impressive population of Superb Jewelwing {Calopteryx amata), an uncommon 
damselfly, along the brook in Granby. This was a valuable educational experience for the 
students as well as one of value for those researchers who are studying distribution of 
odonates (dragonflies and damselflies) in Connecticut. 


me. 


If I may be of further service in this endeavor, please do not hesitate to contact 




Ill 



^tate of Cotmecfttut 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

STATE CAPrrOL 


REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM SIMANSKI ASSISTANT REPUBLICAN LEADER 

SIXTY-SECOND ASSEMBLY DISTRICT 


RANKING MEMBER 

l.LGlSLATiVE OF-FiCE BUILDING, ROOM 4200 BANKS COM^^mEE 

300 CAPITOL AVENUE 

HARTFORD. CT 06106-1591 MEMBER 

PlANNiNG AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 

TOLL FREE; (800) 842-1423 TRANSPORTATiON COMMITTEE 

CAPiTOL: (860) 240-8700 
HOME: (860) 653-0686 
Biil.SirT?ansk!@housegop.ct.gov 


June i. 7'. 2015 : 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski, Chairman 
The Honorable Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member 
Senate Committee on Energ>' and Natural Resources 
304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 
Washington, D.G. 2051.0 

The Honorable Ron Bishop, Chairman 
The Honorable Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member 
House Committee on Natur^ Resources 
1324 Longworth House Office Building 
Washington, D.C, 20:510 

Dear Senators Murkowskl and Cantwell and Representatives Bishop and Gfijalva, 

I write today in strong support of H.R. 646 and S. 329 which would provide the Lower Fhrmington , River and 
Salmon Brook with a Wild and Scenic designation. This designation would benefit both watercourses and the 
surrounding area in many ways. 

A Wild and Scenic designation removes the federal right of eminent domain and protects private property 
rights. The designation would leave in place existing; regulations by towns and the State of Connecticut and 
would nor require any new land use regulations. The protection affoided to the Lower Farmington River and 
Salmon Brook through a Wild and Scenic designation would support the local businesses that serve the many 
visitors who come from across the country and Canada to enjoy the river and brook. 

The Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook are invaluable recreational and natural resources, and I fully 
support the effort to further protect them through .a Wild and Sc-enic Designation. Thank you for your 
consideration of this request. 


Sincerely, 



Bill Simanski 
Srafe Representadve 
62'“^ District 






112 



The Simsbury Garden Club 
P.0, Box 123, Simsbury, CT 06070 
June 18, 2015 


Sally Rieger 

Lower Farmington River/Salmon Brook 
Wild& Scenic Study Committee 
749 Hopmeadow Street 
Simsbury, CT 06070 

Dear Ms. Rieger; 

I am writing on behalf of the Simsbury Garden Club to indicate our support of the Wild 
and Scenic River designation of the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook. This 
position was taken by formal vote of the Club’s general membership at their meeting on 
January 25, 2010. 

The stated mission of the Simsbury Garden Club is, in part, to promote conservation and 
protection of natural resources. The Club recognizes that the designation of the Lower 
Farmington River and Salmon Brook as a Wild and Scenic River would benefit these 
waterways by providing funding, research and support that help protect the Farmington 
River. 

The Simsbury Garden Club hopes that the designation of these treasured natural 
resources will be achieved for the benefit of our community and our wild areas. 

Sincerely, 

Carol Bingham and Charmaine Glew, Co-Presidents 
The Simsbury Garden Club. 




113 



Board of Trustees 
Fred Feibcl, President 
Marger,' Wintere. Wee President 
Karen Brand, Seerclaiy 
Bob Ellis, Treasurer 


Chad Aifeld 
Joan Allen 
Ted Almy 
Maiy Baler 
Dick Davis 
T. j. Donohue 
Katie French 
Rob Heagney 
Paul Henaiilt 
Chuck Howard 
Diana Moody 
Sally Rieger 
Elliot Schulinan 
Susan Van Kieef 

Amy 7.einer, F-reciitive Director 
Patricia Hazelwood, Director, 
Finance and Membership 

Advisory Board 
Bob Bingham 
Bill Cox 
Candace Fitzpatrick 
Bill Howard 
Mike Long 


Preserving Slmshury 
Open Space Since 1 976 


SIMSBURY LAND TRUST 

P.O. Box 634 ! Simsbury, CT 06070 i td 860.651.8773 1 860.6S 1.8773 I www.simsbuiylandtrust.org 


June 11, 2015 

The Honorable Lisa Murko^^ki, Chair 
The Honorable Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member 
Senate Committee on Enei^ and Natural Resources 
304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senators Murkowski and Cantwell: 

I am writing on behalf of the Simsbury Land Trust to indicate our support of the Wild 
& Scenic River designation of the Lower Faimington River and Salmon Brook. This 
position was taken by formal vote of the Board of the land trust at their meeting on June 
11 . 

We are pleased to learn that the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
has decided to proceed with a hearing on the designation bill, S.329. We urge you to 
consider this bill favorably and move it forward to a Senate vole. 

Our organization is a 501c-3 which has the goal of protecting natural areas in Simsbury 
that provide good wildlife habitat and related opportunities for public recreation. We 
also work to protect viewsheds that define our community. We own land on the 
Farmington River and also own the development rights of a local riverfront farm. River 
protection enhances the value of our own land and is important to Rosedale Farm where 
vegetable fields and a vineyard require irrigation using river water. 

We understand that no private property rights would be violated by the designation of 
the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook as Wild and Scenic under the 
partnership model of the Wild and Scenic Rivers program. In fact, designation would 
extinguish the federal right of eminent domain. Based on the past experience of upper 
river communities in a Wild and Scenic area designated in 1994 we on the lower 
Farmington River and Salmon Brook look forward to enjoying the advantages of 
designation that the upper river communities have experienced. 

Fred Feibel ^ 

Chairman 

Simsbury Land Trust Board of Trustees 


Piinted on Recycled Paper 


114 


June 14, 2015 

The Honorable Lisa MurkowskI, Chair 
The Honorable Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member 
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20510 


The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chairman 
The Honorable Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member 
House Committee on Natural Resources 
1324 Longworth House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20510 


Dear Senators Murkowski and Cantwell and Representatives Bishop and Grijalva, 

I am writing on behalf of the TARIFFVILLE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION to reiterate our ongoing 
Support of the Wild & Scenic River designation for the Lower Farmington River and Salmon 
Brook. We whole heartedly support S.329 and H.R. 646 and urge you to do ail you can to move 
The designations bills forward. 

The Tariffvllle section of Simsbury, is closely bonded with the Farmington River. The well-being 
of all the River's outstanding resource values directly affects all of our citizens. Protection 
and enhancement of these resource values is a goal of our community which owes it's very 
existence to the Farmington River and Salmon Brook. We all benefit greatly from the knowledge 
and protection of the geology, archeology, cultural landscape, water quality, biodiversity, and 
recreational values of the river, most notably in the world famous Tariffville Gorge. 

Once again the Board of Directors of the Tariffville Village Association voted on 
June 11, 2015 to enthusiastically endorse these bills. 

Sincerely, 

Wanda H. Colman, President, Tariffville Village Association 


o